Exploring alternative economic pathways: a comparison of foundational economy and Doughnut economics

IF 3.6 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Madeleine Wahlund, Teis Hansen
{"title":"Exploring alternative economic pathways: a comparison of foundational economy and Doughnut economics","authors":"Madeleine Wahlund, Teis Hansen","doi":"10.1080/15487733.2022.2030280","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract A number of intersecting crises are currently ongoing at multiple scales, including increasing inequality, environmental degradation, and climate destabilization, as well as new surges of populism and mounting public health threats. These emergencies question our economic model of past decades and provoke a rethinking of the general approach to economic policy from a multi-scalar perspective. In this article, we compare two approaches aiming to rethink economic development policy: foundational economy and Doughnut economics, and consider if and how they complement each other. We conclude that the two approaches are potentially complementary, most prominently in their call for high-income countries to refocus from growth per se to purpose-driven economic strategies that prioritize public services and redistribute incomes. However, they differ in respect to their geographical focus, environmental concerns, and application. To properly address tradeoffs between social needs and environmental effects, foundational scholarship would benefit from deeper engagement with the socioenvironmental perspective presented in Doughnut economics, which stresses the need to consider human-nature interlinkages. In sum, combining different aspects of the two approaches promises to provide a more robust response to contemporary challenges, especially for local policy making.","PeriodicalId":35192,"journal":{"name":"Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy","volume":"1998 1","pages":"171 - 186"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2022.2030280","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Abstract A number of intersecting crises are currently ongoing at multiple scales, including increasing inequality, environmental degradation, and climate destabilization, as well as new surges of populism and mounting public health threats. These emergencies question our economic model of past decades and provoke a rethinking of the general approach to economic policy from a multi-scalar perspective. In this article, we compare two approaches aiming to rethink economic development policy: foundational economy and Doughnut economics, and consider if and how they complement each other. We conclude that the two approaches are potentially complementary, most prominently in their call for high-income countries to refocus from growth per se to purpose-driven economic strategies that prioritize public services and redistribute incomes. However, they differ in respect to their geographical focus, environmental concerns, and application. To properly address tradeoffs between social needs and environmental effects, foundational scholarship would benefit from deeper engagement with the socioenvironmental perspective presented in Doughnut economics, which stresses the need to consider human-nature interlinkages. In sum, combining different aspects of the two approaches promises to provide a more robust response to contemporary challenges, especially for local policy making.
探索不同的经济路径:基础经济学和甜甜圈经济学的比较
当前,许多相互交叉的危机正在多个尺度上进行,包括不平等加剧、环境退化和气候不稳定,以及民粹主义的新浪潮和日益严重的公共卫生威胁。这些紧急情况对我们过去几十年的经济模式提出了质疑,并促使人们从多尺度的角度重新思考经济政策的一般方法。在本文中,我们比较了两种旨在重新思考经济发展政策的方法:基础经济学和甜甜圈经济学,并考虑它们是否以及如何相互补充。我们得出结论,这两种方法具有潜在的互补性,最突出的是它们都呼吁高收入国家将重点从增长本身转向以目标为导向的经济战略,优先考虑公共服务和收入再分配。然而,它们在地理重点、环境问题和应用方面有所不同。为了正确地处理社会需求和环境影响之间的权衡,基础学术将受益于与甜甜圈经济学中提出的社会环境观点的深入接触,该观点强调需要考虑人与自然的相互联系。总而言之,将两种方法的不同方面结合起来,有望为当前的挑战提供更有力的回应,特别是在地方政策制定方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy
Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy Social Sciences-Geography, Planning and Development
CiteScore
12.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
审稿时长
27 weeks
期刊介绍: Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy is a refereed, open-access journal which recognizes that climate change and other socio-environmental challenges require significant transformation of existing systems of consumption and production. Complex and diverse arrays of societal factors and institutions will in coming decades need to reconfigure agro-food systems, implement renewable energy sources, and reinvent housing, modes of mobility, and lifestyles for the current century and beyond. These innovations will need to be formulated in ways that enhance global equity, reduce unequal access to resources, and enable all people on the planet to lead flourishing lives within biophysical constraints. The journal seeks to advance scientific and political perspectives and to cultivate transdisciplinary discussions involving researchers, policy makers, civic entrepreneurs, and others. The ultimate objective is to encourage the design and deployment of both local experiments and system innovations that contribute to a more sustainable future by empowering individuals and organizations and facilitating processes of social learning.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信