Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents a compelling and timely intervention by reframing degrowth as a systems-thinking-driven transformation strategy for South Africa, grounded in justice, equity, and ecological regeneration. The authors aim to shift the discourse from GDP-centric growth to a paradigm of sufficiency, care, and democratic control of provisioning systems, using Donella Meadows’ leverage points and canonical systems archetypes (Limits to Growth, Shifting the Burden, Success to the Successful, Tragedy of the Commons) to diagnose structural lock-ins in South Africa’s political economy. However, there is a need for further improvements before acceptance.

Abstract

While the abstract effectively outlines the paper’s scope and theoretical grounding, it lacks a clear statement of the originality of the contribution. It does not explicitly differentiate this systems-thinking approach to degrowth from prior applications of Meadows’ leverage points in sustainability literature.

Introduction

The introduction effectively establishes the urgency of rethinking growth in the context of South Africa’s overlapping crises and positions degrowth not as austerity but as a re-design of provisioning systems.However, the second proposition—that degrowth is best understood as an applied leverage-point strategy—requires stronger justification. This conceptual leap is asserted rather than argued, and the paper would benefit from a brief literature review comparing alternative frameworks (e.g., green growth, post-growth, steady-state economics) to justify why systems thinking is the primary agent of change.

Methodology

The paper lacks a clearly defined methodology section. While it draws on systems archetypes and leverage points, it does not specify how these were selected, applied, or validated in the South African context. The use of systems archetypes is largely illustrative rather than analytical. 

Results

The application of the four archetypes is conceptually coherent and well-illustrated with global and domestic examples. The integration of South African energy and ecological challenges into the archetypes enhances contextual relevance. However, the analysis remains descriptive rather than diagnostic. For instance, in Archetype B (Shifting the Burden), the critique of diesel procurement is sound, but there is no evidence provided on the scale or fiscal impact of this practice, nor a timeline showing how it has delayed renewable investment.

Discussion

The discussion effectively links theoretical insights to actionable policy levers—rules, information flows, and goals—and aligns them with existing legislation (Climate Change Act, JET). The emphasis on universal basic services, repair economies, and participatory monitoring is innovative and socially grounded. he proposed pathways lack prioritization or sequencing. For example, how should policymakers balance the urgency of decommissioning coal plants with the need to build community microgrids? A phased or staged implementation logic is missing.

Conclusion

The conclusion successfully synthesizes the paper’s core argument and reiterates the transformative potential of a degrowth compass. It overstates the readiness of the Climate Change Act and JET frameworks to support degrowth. These are still evolving policy instruments, and their alignment with degrowth objectives is aspirational rather than operational. The conclusion would benefit from a more cautious tone regarding implementation challenges.

 

Author Response

We have attached another document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,
A brief summary
The article addresses a gap in the literature by not viewing growth as a necessity, but instead arguing that overlapping crises in South Africa are systemic outcomes of a political economy. The authors create a comprehensive systemic view of the topic with a specific field of study.
General concept comments
Question addressed by the research
The article seeks to recast "degrowth" as a practical strategy that focuses on systemic structures such as information flows, rules and paradigms.
Original topic / specific gap
The topic is original and relevant. The article addresses a gap in the literature by not viewing growth as a necessity, but instead arguing that overlapping crises in South Africa are systemic outcomes of a political economy dependent on growth.
The subject area compared with other publications material
Integrates theoretical concepts of systems thinking and regrowth with decolonial perspectives, Ubuntu ethics, IPBES values ​​and existing legislative frameworks such as the Climate Change Act.
Improvements of the methodologies / further controls
The article is a conceptual work that applies theory to a specific context. Therefore, the authors could focus on the following improvements to the methodology:
• Empirical validation: While the study proposes frameworks, it does not provide empirical evidence. Future research could empirically test the validity of the proposed strategies.
• Detailed case studies: The application of the archetypes could be extended to detailed case studies that illustrate how specific policies have led or could lead to systemic change.
• Quantitative measurement: The authors propose metrics such as "material footprint per capita" and "energy intensity of well-being", but do not provide quantitative analysis. Including such data would strengthen the arguments and conclusions.
Consistency of conclusions
The conclusions are consistent with the arguments and evidence presented in the article. However, this theoretical basis needs to be supported as mentioned above by empirical verification, detailed case studies and quantitative measurement. It is also worth noting that the article is more of a theoretical review. It is not clear what the authors' further intention is in the area of ​​research and its limitations.
The references
The references are adequate and relevant.
Additional comments
It would be appropriate to add:
• Limitations (research methodology, depth of research, risks). Where do you discuss the limitations of the given issue and its state?
• What is the current market situation? Why is change important?
• Future direction of the research. Emphasize in a separate section how you are going to process this knowledge further?
• Process case studies that would compare similar areas and the results of the given state of the issue.
• Conduct empirical verification to strengthen the quality of the treatment of the issue and its results.

Author Response

we have uploaded a file in response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper deals with degrowth by means of systems thinking archetypes in case of South Africa. The authors integrate Meadows’ leverage points, decolonial ethics and central policy frameworks in South Africa (the Climate Change Act and Just Energy Transition). The topic is relevant to South Africa, where inequality, unemployment, and ecological overshoot are important issues. The literature review is strong, including works by degrowth thinkers and decolonial scholars.

We propose below some aspects to be improved.

1.State the research objectives or questions in the introduction.

2.Clarify the type of research article: a conceptual framework, a theoretical contribution, or a policy analysis.

3.In the methodology add a section discussing why you chose these archetypes and how they are applied to South Africa.

4.Make a smoother transition from theoretical framing to archetype application.

5.Give more concrete South African examples: issues on inequality, sector-specific energy transition obstacles, etc.

6.Include some empirical parts, e.g. descriptive statistics on energy use, inequality, or ecological overshoot.

7.Among policy recommendations, include political economy barriers, governance capacity, etc.

8.Summarize in conclusions the unique contributions of the paper.

9.Can this case study be applied to other Global South contexts?

 

Author Response

We have uploaded a file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made significant changes according to comments and suggestions.

Author Response

Here’s a concise, professional way you can respond with gratitude to the reviewers:

Response:
We would like to sincerely thank the reviewers for their careful reading of our manuscript and for the thoughtful feedback provided. The comments and suggestions were invaluable in guiding the revision process, and we deeply appreciate the time and effort invested in strengthening the quality and clarity of our work.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The comments have been processed.

Author Response

We thank the reviewers for their valuable insights and careful evaluation of the manuscript. All comments have been carefully processed and incorporated into the revised version, which we believe has substantially improved the clarity, depth, and overall contribution of the work.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been significantly improved.

You mention Global South applicability. Give a  comparative case (example)  (e.g., Brazil, India) for the generalizability of the results.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English is very good.

Author Response

Reviewer comment: “You mention Global South applicability. Give a comparative case (example) (e.g., Brazil, India) for the generalizability of the results.”

Response to reviewer:
We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. We have revised the conclusion to include comparative Global South cases that illustrate the framework’s wider applicability. Specifically, we now reference Brazil and India as contexts where ecological overshoot and inequality similarly intersect. These examples demonstrate how the archetype–leverage point framework can be adapted beyond South Africa.

Manuscript revision (revised conclusion text):

Beyond South Africa, the framework holds transferable value for other Global South contexts where ecological overshoot and inequality intersect. For instance, in Brazil, deforestation in the Amazon exemplifies a Tragedy of the Commons dynamic, where short-term economic gains from resource exploitation undermine long-term planetary resilience and disproportionately affect Indigenous communities. In India, the energy transition reveals a Shifting the Burden archetype, where short-term coal dependence delays structural transformation while intensifying air pollution, fiscal stress, and climate vulnerability for marginalised populations. These comparative illustrations highlight how the degrowth compass can diagnose systemic traps and propose leverage strategies across diverse Global South contexts. In this sense, the degrowth compass is both a benchmark for critical reflection and a guide for transformative action, offering pathways to reimagine futures beyond growth that are just, equitable, and ecologically restorative.