Ideas: Design a new economy?

Designing the economy?

“We want graduates that meet the needs of the economy!”

Sound familiar? In my years of work in higher education I took part in many meetings, workshops and conversations about how better to align graduate outcomes with the job market. We consulted with people in business and industry, asking what kind of graduates they valued, so that we could tailor our programs to meet those needs.

But we were asking the wrong question.

We should have been asking: What kind of economy do we want to meet the needs of people?

The idea that we might design an economy that serves the needs of people, seems unthinkable. The economy is, after all, a giant, complex, intertwined system that runs according to its own logical laws over which we have no control—laws which only those trained in the dark arts of economics can really understand. Economists learn a few well-defined levers that can move economies, but other than that, we are at the mercy of the economic engine.

Could we ask that question? Could we create an economy that serves people and the planet, rather than the other way around? Once I entertained the idea, and went looking, I found a substantial network of people, organisations, and even governments, trying to instigate such changes in their economies. The alternatives come by many names—circular economy, doughnut economics, care economy, solidarity economy, steady state economics and degrowth—but they all want to change the economic system. (As opposed to the many excellent initiatives to improve wellbeing within the existing economic system.)

The Wellbeing Economy Alliance (Weall) is a network that brings together these various ideas, under the overarching idea that “our economic system is not working fairly for everyone and we need to put people and planet in front of profit.” I take hope from how many organisations and individuals are part of this network, as well as their wide geographic distribution. Weall has established hubs in Europe, North and South America, Africa and Australasia, as well as members in other locations.

The idea of a wellbeing economy is new, and so is ill-defined. Indeed, the Weall community encourages members to work out for themselves what a wellbeing economy might look like because wellbeing means different things in different contexts. What they agree on though, is that the economy needs to be understood broadly, to include households, the natural environment and government, as well as the industries and businesses that we usually associate with economic activity.

The alliance includes organisations that support some level of controlled economic growth, as well as those who promote de-growth or a post-growth economic system. Again, a cause for optimism because this is a divisive point and, rather than taking sides, it is more constructive to include. We need all the ideas we can get to change the world.

The alliance has a few useful initiatives underway. The Wellbeing Economy Governments partnership (WEGo) is a collaboration of national and regional governments working towards wellbeing economies in which Scotland, Iceland, New Zealand, Wales, Finland, and Canada currently participate. They also have a free, online course in Wellbeing Economy Policy Design. Although the course was developed for people working in government, I found it interesting to learn about principles of the wellbeing economy as well as examples of initiatives already underway.

Of course, ideas take time and effort to take hold, especially when they are at odds with well-entrenched beliefs. One influence that gradually moves how people think is research, so I was pleased to see an article, “Post-growth: the science of wellbeing within planetary boundaries” published in January 2025, in The Lancet Planetary Health.

This expert review opens with a very useful discussion of the distinctions and similarities between doughnut, wellbeing, steady-state, and degrowth economics. It reviews research into the limits to growth imposed by resources, as well how human wellbeing relates to economic growth.

The paper presents two ecological macroeconomic models which, instead of measuring the economy in solely financial terms, include human and planetary health. These models show that low growth results in better climate outcomes and that policy interventions can lead to good social outcomes. They show that policies such as reduced working time, universal basic income, universal basic services and job guarantees improve wellbeing. They also show that interventions such as carbon taxes, are less effective.

The paper acknowledges the political challenge in changing the direction of economies and discusses the need for greater equality, as well as the difference in responses between the Global North and South. While the obstacles are formidable, I am encouraged by the increasing attention that wellbeing economies are getting.

Years ago, when I headed the School of Economic and Business Sciences at Wits University in South Africa, a young economist accused me of living in “happy bunny land” because of my optimistic and idealistic positions on most things. These developments show that governments, and even economists, are now entertaining the idea that we can design a happier world. Good ideas for more hopeful stories!