What’s the difference between the “progress” and “abundance” movements?
Short answer: They overlap 80–90%, and if you’re outside both of them you should probably think of them as variations on the same thing. If you look at the Abundance conference and the Progress Conference, for example, there’s a good amount of overlap in the speakers, attendees, and topics.
What are the differences?
“Abundance” tends to be more wonkish, oriented towards DC and policy, and focuses on reforming regulations and institutions with a goal of efficiency and being able to build stuff again.
“Progress” is interested in regulatory reform and efficiency, but it’s also interested in ambitious future technologies, from longevity to nanotech. It’s also more focused on ideas and culture, and on history, philosophy, and economics, in addition to just policy.
Again, just look at the conferences: Abundance is held in DC; Progress Conference in the San Francisco area.
In “The Progress Agenda” I sketched out three broad cause areas for the progress movement: regulatory reform, research institutions, and culture. To my mind, the “abundance agenda” is basically the first of those. So I think of the abundance movement as a part of the progress movement.
After this year’s Progress Conference, Charles Mann suggested: “Abundance wants to make sure everyone has a house. Progress wants to make those houses better.” But IMO, the progress movement is interested in both of those things, so that’s not how I think of the distinction.
Some more background for those who are interested:
“Progress” took off in 2019 when Patrick Collison and Tyler Cowen coined the term “progress studies” in The Atlantic. They proposed it as a field of study, but the article galvanized a movement. (The movement has taken off more than the field, so I tend to talk about the progress movement or progress community rather than “progress studies.”)
There were precursors. Steven Pinker’s Enlightenment Now (2018), David Deutsch’s The Beginning of Infinity (2011), and
’s The Future and Its Enemies (1998) all had progress as a central concept (two of those have “Progress” in the subtitle). Marian Tupy started HumanProgress.org back around 2012. Peter Thiel, Tyler Cowen, and Robert Gordon were all talking about growth vs. stagnation in the 2010s, although they emphasized those concepts more than “progress.” Max Roser at Our World in Data since 2011, and Hans Rosling before him, worked to communicate the reality of progress, especially global development. Of course, the idea of progress has a history going back centuries at least.Organizations and projects that put “progress” in the name include the Institute for Progress, Works in Progress magazine, the Human Progress project, and of course us, the Roots of Progress Institute.
“Abundance” was popularized by Derek Thompson, who coined the term “abundance agenda” in a 2022 Atlantic piece. It has since taken off politically, especially with Derek and Ezra Klein’s book titled Abundance that launched this year. Again, there were precursors, including Peter Diamandis’s book also titled Abundance from 2012.
Derek and Ezra credit the progress movement as one of their influences in this podcast.
Things with “abundance” in the name include the Abundance Institute, the Abundance Network, the Metropolitan Abundance Project, the Inclusive Abundance Initiative, and even for a while an Abundance Caucus, which got renamed to the Build America Caucus (because “abundance” has become a partisan term on Capitol Hill, owing to Derek and Ezra being Democrats).
Further reading: Ruy Teixeira captured some of the differences between the progress and abundance movements in his post on the Progress Conference; Steve Teles at Niskanen offers a different take on various factions who have adopted “abundance” ideas.
I will be sending this to like 100 people thank you for writing it
My take on the issue is that Progress is a more objective (neutral) movement that starts with the question of what is progress and how do we generate it? Abundance seems more of a movement by Democrats to shore up weaknesses in their party related to growth and competence.
In other words, those in the progress movement are widely focused, and politics is a tool they consider and use. The question is what positions advance humanity. If the answer is is libertarian or conservative or liberal, so be it.
For abundance, the question seems more about how they can advance the interests of the party. I get the sense that if there was a choice between abundance and tribal allegiance to their party, the abundance crowd would drop it like a hot poker.