Anders Hayden charts the rise of a concept of an economy focused on human needs and sustainability, and warns of its vulnerability to being co-opted by the mainstream as a buzzword.
A wellbeing economy has been described by its leading advocates in these terms: “Rather than treating economic growth as an end in and of itself and pursuing it at all costs, a wellbeing economy (WE) puts our human and planetary needs at the centre of its activities ….” And the idea behind it has made considerable headway in recent years.
The words above come from the Wellbeing Economy Alliance (WEAll), which was created in 2018 – the same year the Wellbeing Economy Governments (WEGo), now comprising New Zealand, Scotland, Iceland, Finland, and Wales, was founded. The concept, with some variation, has been endorsed by the Council of the European Union, the Organisation for Cooperation and Development, and the World Health Organisation. A WE was one of the main economic alternatives put forward at the Beyond Growth Conference in Brussels in 2023. Since then, it has been at the centre of debate at the annual Wellbeing Economy Forum in Reykjavik, leading some to imagine optimistically that the event could one day rival the World Economic Forum in Davos and its focus on the growth economy.
Has the WE’s meaning been watered down and reduced to little more than a buzzword?
For advocates of a post-growth economy, who have long faced daunting obstacles in getting their ideas accepted in the political mainstream despite the ecological evidence in their favour, the WE’s advances appear to be a refreshing change. After all, the WE concept has roots in post-growth thinking. But has a real breakthrough occurred for post-growth ideas? Or has the WE’s meaning been watered down and reduced to little more than a buzzword – a feel-good term that users can give their own preferred meanings?
Many WE supporters have sought a post-growth transformation, going back to early mentions of the concept in the New Economics Foundation’s 2004 Wellbeing Manifesto, which promoted alternatives to the pursuit of ever-more consumption in high-income countries. The WE’s lineage also runs through Bhutan, which in the early 2010s sought to promote a new economic paradigm based on the pursuit of happiness within planetary boundaries to replace “the doctrine of limitless growth.” Some international participants in those efforts went on to be part of the WEAll’s subsequent creation.
The EU Wellbeing Economy Coalition (EUWEC) speaks of a WE “in which everyone can thrive, within planetary boundaries” and “an economic system that is no longer structurally dependent on economic growth.” The EUWEC also highlights evidence casting doubt on the possibility of decoupling economic growth from environmental impacts on the scale needed to avoid ecological breakdown, a concern shared by many WE advocates.
However, there is no consensus definition of a WE, and other formulations do not depict the WE in post-growth terms.
Many examples also exist of radical concepts co-opted to serve very different agendas as they enter the mainstream. In the field of international development, terms such as “participation,” “empowerment,” and “poverty reduction” initially involved radical critiques of dominant practices but later became buzzwords adopted by institutions like the World Bank. Such concepts were depoliticised, stripped of transformative content, and ultimately used to support business-as-usual practices. A similar phenomenon has also occurred with the terms “sustainable development” and “sustainability.”
The idea of a WE is particularly vulnerable to cooptation, given the broad appeal and amorphous nature of wellbeing. Like many buzzwords, a “WE” – and wellbeing more generally – evoke “good things,” and almost everyone can support them in principle. However, people can assign these terms very different meanings and priorities, whether it is a greater emphasis on poverty reduction and the social determinants of health, “sustainable and inclusive growth,” or even a neoliberal or anti-immigration agenda. Indeed, some WE supporters warn of “wellbeing washing,” where the language of wellbeing masks the lack of real change.
WE’s post-growth elements are at particular risk as the concept is mainstreamed.
The WE’s post-growth elements are at particular risk as the concept is mainstreamed. The OECD’s support for a wellbeing economy comes, for example, with the understanding that wellbeing and economic growth are part of a “virtuous circle” in which wellbeing and growth are “mutually reinforcing.” Similar ideas have been embraced by the Council of the European Union and WEGo member Finland.
In fact, all WEGo nations continue to pursue economic growth, even if they acknowledge that GDP growth is not all that matters. Statements by WEGo leaders and related documents illustrate that economic growth remains an important means to achieve goals such as job creation, fiscal sustainability, and funding wellbeing-enhancing public programs. The need for continued growth to maintain the welfare state’s financial sustainability stands out particularly firmly in the Nordic WEGo nations, Finland and Iceland, where concerns have been raised about ageing populations and projections of slower labour productivity and GDP growth.
That said, WEGo nations have taken limited steps in a post-growth direction, amounting to a “weak post-growth” approach. These include going beyond GDP by introducing new ways to measure well-being and prosperity, integrating those indicators into policymaking, and, to varying degrees in each country, downplaying the centrality of economic growth, even if it is still pursued. WEGo nations have also introduced some policies that reflect an ethic of sufficiency – a concept prominent in post-growth thinking – such as a ground-breaking decision in Wales to curtail most new road building.
To go further and become a “strong post-growth” approach, a WE will have to wrestle with the very difficult challenge of overcoming growth dependency.
To take it further and adopt a “strong post-growth” approach, a WE will have to grapple with the very difficult challenge of overcoming growth dependency. Declaring that well-being rather than growth is the ultimate goal does not, in itself, reduce reliance on economic growth to create jobs, balance budgets, fund the welfare state, and so on. Reducing growth dependency will require far-reaching changes that post-growth scholars are working to understand better. Proposals include a job guarantee and work-time reduction to ensure adequate employment provision, a more equitable distribution of resources, and more broadly shared ownership. This approach also aims to limit public spending needs through a preventative approach to social and environmental problems – an idea that can build on some existing practices in WEGo nations.
To maintain a WE’s post-growth edge, recent efforts to develop criteria to distinguish “genuine” WE reforms from “window dressing” can help. Also needed are strategies to avoid the silencing of a post-growth message. One option is to consistently define and talk about a WE as part of a constellation of other words that highlight a transformative agenda, such as post-growth, beyond growth, sufficiency, living well within limits, and planetary boundaries. While there is a risk that mainstreaming the WE will reduce the concept to an empty buzzword, there is also potential to resist its dilution, defend a transformative WE vision, and build on existing steps in a post-growth direction.
