The concept of Green Growth implies that a wide range of developmental objectives, such as job creation, economic prosperity
and poverty alleviation, can be easily reconciled with environmental sustainability. This article, however, argues that rather than
being win–win, Green Growth is similar to most types of policy reforms that advocate the acceptance of short-term adjustment
costs in the expectation of long-term gains. In particular, Green Growth policies often encourage developing countries to
redesign their national strategies in ways that might be inconsistent with natural comparative advantages and past investments.
In turn, there are often sizeable anti-reform coalitions whose interests may conflict with a Green Growth agenda. We illustrate
this argument by using case studies of Malawi, Mozambique and South Africa, which are engaged in development strategies
that involve inorganic fertilizers, biofuel production and coal-based energy, respectively. Each of these countries is pursuing
an environmentally suboptimal strategy but nonetheless addressing critical development needs, including food security, fuel
and electricity. We show that adopting a Green Growth approach would not only be economically costly but also generate
substantial domestic resistance, especially among the poor.