������

To an economist, growth means productivity, innovation, and society’s ability to sustain wellbeing in the future. To a sustainability scholar, the idea of endless growth on a finite planet is problematic. And to many young people, the entire conversation can feel distant at a time when uncertainty and anxiety about the future are also growing.

Perhaps the central question is no longer simply how to generate more growth, but what exactly we are trying to grow in the first place.

Growth is not an end in itself 

Professor Otto Toivanen no longer eats liquorice. He had enough of it while working in a liquorice factory in Turku after high school, trying to figure out what to do with his life. By a series of fortunate turns, he eventually became an economist – largely because economics was the only entrance exam subject that did not put him to sleep.

He got into university, and that was the end of liquorice for him. His career eventually took him abroad as a researcher and later, around ten years ago, back to Finland.

The rest is history: in 2018, he helped establish the Helsinki Graduate School of Economics, and in 2025 he was appointed an Aalto Distinguished Professor. In hindsight, the plan honed at the liquorice factory worked out just fine.

Today, he views growth – and its absence – through the lens of a subdued national mood. People are cautious, pessimistic about the future, and more inclined to save than spend. Many feel the country is drifting towards worse, not better.

‘Our current economic resources don’t match our aspirations for the life we want to live, the life we want to offer older generations and our children, or the way we want to participate in the world,’ he says.

And that’s why we need growth. But growth isn’t an end in itself, he argues.

‘The question is what growth enables. If it enables better wellbeing – and I mean wellbeing, not just standard of living – it’s hard to see many things that would be more worth striving for.’

Joona Lipponen, Chair of the Aalto University Student Union (AYY), believes public debate often conflates economic growth with the growth of wellbeing. Many young people question the idea of endless material growth at a time when the planet’s ecological limits are already under strain. 

‘When we talk about growth, what exactly are we talking about? Growth in wellbeing or growth in material wealth? Many people assume these are synonymous, and that economic growth automatically improves wellbeing – but is that really true?’

Lipponen also didn’t have a straight path after high school. An interest in geography and civics, plus struggling through advanced maths, led him to study the built environment at Aalto.

He graduated with his Bachelor’s last spring, and the demand on his time has only grown. In his view, when young people are entrusted with responsibility, everyone benefits if they use it to engage; studies can wait, impact cannot. 

A finite planet

When sustainability design professor İdil Gaziulusoy hears the word growth, she thinks of plants. Her home is so much more than a human home; with two cats and full of greenery, it’s ‘a veritable jungle.’ What fascinates her most is plants’ capacity to keep growing.

‘We humans simply stop growing at some point. Trees, of course, also have life cycles, but like all plants, they continue growing for as long as they are alive,’ she reflects.

Unlike Toivanen, Gaziulusoy knew at the age of six that she would become a professor someday. But it was a chance that brought her ������. A decade ago, while working in Melbourne, the Turkish-born scholar felt the pull back to this part of the world. It seemed like a stroke of fate when a professorship opened at the School of Arts, Design and Architecture – exactly in her field and at a place she already respected. 

Growth also has a positive, personal meaning for her – humans can grow emotionally and intellectually. But she quickly points out that there are many things people do not want to grow: grief, grudges, or cancer, for example. And the hardest part is limitless economic growth. As a sustainability scholar, she recognises that we cannot keep growing indefinitely on a finite planet.

Toivanen understands this critique of growth, with environmental impacts being chief among the concerns. But he also reminds us that the absence of growth leads to the kind of problems Finland is already facing and, if prolonged, could erode the welfare state.

In economics, growth often means productivity growth: doing more or better with the same resources or achieving the same outcomes with fewer. Toivanen links this to the possibility of green growth: a more service-based economy, renewable energy and a circular economy could shrink the footprint, even if not everything can be decoupled from materiality.

Gaziulusoy challenges the assumption that efficiency alone is enough. Even if technology reduces environmental impacts, “doing more of the same more efficiently” cannot solve everything if material consumption continues to grow, she argues.

Global inequality complicates the debate. While some parts of the world are questioning the limits to growth, in many countries economic growth remains essential to meet basic needs.

‘We are limited by the logic of nation states, as it forces nation states to think about their own interests. And the interests of the disadvantaged do not make it to the shared table,’ Gaziulusoy says.

Lipponen, too, believes current societies rely too heavily on the assumption of endless economic growth. And a lot of young people are starting to feel that we simply cannot continue in the current direction indefinitely. Some seek to reform the system from within by making growth more sustainable. Others want more fundamental structural change.

‘Many young people want to fundamentally change the system instead of merely making existing growth models more sustainable. These approaches are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but in some sense the choice is this: do we reshape economic growth to support sustainability, or do we change the entire system?’

According to Gaziulusoy, alternative economic models such as steady-state or post-growth economies are still discussed cautiously because no politically credible pathway toward them has yet emerged. Sustainable growth, she argues, cannot be achieved through technology or individual policy decisions alone – it also requires an entirely new shared understanding of what kind of development we actually consider desirable. 

Whose growth do we pursue? 

Before debating how to grow, perhaps we should ask what exactly should grow: wealth, services, capabilities, trust – or wellbeing?

Toivanen notes that discussion about growth collides quickly with values. The moment someone labels a form of consumption “unnecessary,” they are inevitably imposing their own values on others. What looks unnecessary to one person may be deeply meaningful to another. 

For Toivanen, the hardest part in pursuing growth isn’t the discussion of using resources more efficiently. It’s deciding what society considers important.

‘The economist’s task is to assess the consequences of different choices and make the trade-offs visible. Politics then decides how common resources are ultimately allocated,’ he says.

Gaziulusoy agrees there is no single ‘desirable’ future that would fit everyone, because people value different things. Rather than impose a top-down blueprint, we need collective imagination and negotiation about the kinds of worlds we want to inhabit. And while science makes visible what is happening, it rarely turns into action on its own.

‘Science can tell us how screwed up the world is, but it does not automatically create change or a willingness to act. It’s not a tool for change. That is why we also need creative practices.’

Joona Lipponen entered student union work to serve his community. His interest in broader public conversation has since grown as he has realised how rarely young people are invited to decision-making tables.

‘This is not about a lack of interest among young people. It is a structural issue. Young people are often treated dismissively, and they themselves learn to think they are not yet supposed to take space or use their voice. But I have realised that we belong at that table regardless of who else is sitting there.’

He stresses that leaving out younger generations’ perspectives on growth is a missed opportunity. The choices made now will shape the lives of those who live with their consequences the longest. They deserve a voice in the debate.

There is no silver bullet, Toivanen says, to ensure young people will get their share in the fruits of growth. But the basics matter: keep the education system working as well as scarce resources allow – quality, yes, but also guidance so students find the paths that fit them. 

Equally important are decisions that do not pass on today’s costs to future adults, whether in terms of natural resources, the pension system, or structures of society. 

What kind of growth should we pursue?

When talking about growth, the question isn’t whether to have more but under what conditions growth is sustainable and what we choose to grow: the economy, consumption, or wellbeing.

For Lipponen, the most desirable growth is growth in wellbeing, ideally defined by people themselves. But if everyone consumed like Finns, the planet would buckle, he says.

In practice, that means decoupling wellbeing from consumption and steering capabilities toward solutions that restore biodiversity and strengthen justice, which is work many Aalto startups already pursue. He’d also like to see the innovation ecosystem open up to a broader range of fields, including the arts.

Toivanen, on the other hand, views green growth as a real opportunity to enhance wellbeing globally.  ‘I believe we can build a world where more people, including those in more vulnerable positions, live better lives and their wellbeing increases, while at the same time placing less strain on the planet. But that is only possible if we learn to do things smarter than before. That’s why education and innovation are essential prerequisites for growth,’ he says.

For Gaziulusoy, the key question behind innovation is always for whom and for what purpose? Innovation, she argues, should not be reduced to endless technological development, ‘technology for technology’s sake.’

Societies also need social innovation – the creative recombination of existing resources – that lead to new practices and institutions. Finland’s welfare state is part of that lineage. 

If growth means better education, more sustainable solutions, and innovations that help us imagine different futures, few would oppose it. The debate becomes more difficult when growth means more consumption, more hurry, and more pressure to do ever more with ever less. 

Ultimately, the debate about growth is about far more than economics. It is about values and about what kind of life we consider worth striving for, not only for ourselves but also for the generations who will inherit the outcomes of our choices.

This article has been published in the , September 2026. 

Text: Tiina Forsberg. 
She works as a science editor at Aalto University Communications. 

Illustration: Touko Miikkulainen. 
They is an illustrator and graphic designer completing their master’s degree at Aalto University. They are particularly interested in the political potential of illustration as a means of communicating ideas and opening up new perspectives.