How to measure progress towards a wellbeing economy: distinguishing genuine advances from 'window dressing'.

IF 2.5 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Gerry McCartney, Martin Hensher, Katherine Trebeck
{"title":"How to measure progress towards a wellbeing economy: distinguishing genuine advances from 'window dressing'.","authors":"Gerry McCartney,&nbsp;Martin Hensher,&nbsp;Katherine Trebeck","doi":"10.17061/phrp3322309","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The world is experiencing multiple intersecting urgent and existential crises, which have profound and inequitable implications for population health. Arguably, the design of the current, dominant economic system and its antecedents is the root cause of these crises, as it externalises impacts on nature, climate and population health, exacerbates inequalities, and rewards extraction, rent-seeking and social hierarchy. A 'wellbeing economy', which aims to achieve social justice within planetary boundaries, has been proposed as an alternative approach to economic design. Many governments, businesses and organisations have expressed interest or commitment to this, but not at the required scale or with the required urgency. Indeed, there is the risk now that the radicalism of a wellbeing economy approach is undermined in its delivery thus far as it has either only been adopted in rhetoric or nascent form; or implemented only as isolated components rather than as part of a comprehensive shift. We, therefore, propose a series of criteria by which judgement can be made on whether progress towards a wellbeing economy is occurring: 1) Is the economy explicitly viewed by relevant actors as serving social, health, cultural, equity and nature outcomes, rather than the reverse?; 2) Is there a comprehensive and plausible pathway to design the economy in a way that achieves these outcomes?; 3) Is there a clear commitment to transitioning away from socially and ecologically damaging economic activities and doing so in a just way?; 4) Are there clear mechanisms that extend democracy over all sectors of the economy, including economic strategy and policy design, and in ownership of economic assets?; 5) Are negative externalities between policy areas or populations assessed and avoided, and positive externalities identified and promoted?; and 6) Are all the measures of economic success focused on social, health, cultural, equity and nature outcomes? We then apply these criteria using a series of examples to show contrasts between genuine wellbeing approaches and wellbeing economy 'window dressing'.</p>","PeriodicalId":45898,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Research & Practice","volume":"33 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health Research & Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17061/phrp3322309","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The world is experiencing multiple intersecting urgent and existential crises, which have profound and inequitable implications for population health. Arguably, the design of the current, dominant economic system and its antecedents is the root cause of these crises, as it externalises impacts on nature, climate and population health, exacerbates inequalities, and rewards extraction, rent-seeking and social hierarchy. A 'wellbeing economy', which aims to achieve social justice within planetary boundaries, has been proposed as an alternative approach to economic design. Many governments, businesses and organisations have expressed interest or commitment to this, but not at the required scale or with the required urgency. Indeed, there is the risk now that the radicalism of a wellbeing economy approach is undermined in its delivery thus far as it has either only been adopted in rhetoric or nascent form; or implemented only as isolated components rather than as part of a comprehensive shift. We, therefore, propose a series of criteria by which judgement can be made on whether progress towards a wellbeing economy is occurring: 1) Is the economy explicitly viewed by relevant actors as serving social, health, cultural, equity and nature outcomes, rather than the reverse?; 2) Is there a comprehensive and plausible pathway to design the economy in a way that achieves these outcomes?; 3) Is there a clear commitment to transitioning away from socially and ecologically damaging economic activities and doing so in a just way?; 4) Are there clear mechanisms that extend democracy over all sectors of the economy, including economic strategy and policy design, and in ownership of economic assets?; 5) Are negative externalities between policy areas or populations assessed and avoided, and positive externalities identified and promoted?; and 6) Are all the measures of economic success focused on social, health, cultural, equity and nature outcomes? We then apply these criteria using a series of examples to show contrasts between genuine wellbeing approaches and wellbeing economy 'window dressing'.

如何衡量迈向幸福经济的进展:区分真正的进步和“橱窗装饰”。
世界正在经历多重相互交织的紧急危机和生存危机,这些危机对人口健康产生了深刻和不公平的影响。可以说,当前占主导地位的经济体系及其之前的设计是这些危机的根本原因,因为它将对自然、气候和人口健康的影响外部化,加剧了不平等,并奖励榨取、寻租和社会等级制度。“幸福经济”旨在在地球边界内实现社会正义,被提议作为经济设计的另一种方法。许多政府、企业和组织对此表示了兴趣或承诺,但没有达到所需的规模或紧迫性。事实上,目前存在的风险是,迄今为止,福利经济方法的激进主义在实施过程中受到了削弱,因为它要么只是在口头上被采用,要么只是初具雏形;或者只作为孤立的组件实现,而不是作为全面转变的一部分。因此,我们提出了一系列标准,通过这些标准可以判断福祉经济是否正在取得进展:1)经济是否被相关行为者明确视为服务于社会、健康、文化、公平和自然结果,而不是相反?2)是否存在一种全面而合理的途径来设计经济,以实现这些结果?3)是否有明确的承诺,以公正的方式过渡到远离破坏社会和生态的经济活动?4)是否有明确的机制将民主扩展到经济的所有部门,包括经济战略和政策设计,以及经济资产的所有权?5)政策领域或人口之间的负面外部性是否得到评估和避免,正面外部性是否得到确认和促进?6)经济成功的所有衡量标准都集中在社会、健康、文化、公平和自然结果上吗?然后,我们运用这些标准,用一系列的例子来展示真正的幸福方法和幸福经济“粉饰”之间的对比。
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
Public Health Research & Practice
Public Health Research & Practice PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
51
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: Public Health Research & Practice is an open-access, quarterly, online journal with a strong focus on the connection between research, policy and practice. It publishes innovative, high-quality papers that inform public health policy and practice, paying particular attention to innovations, data and perspectives from policy and practice. The journal is published by the Sax Institute, a national leader in promoting the use of research evidence in health policy. Formerly known as The NSW Public Health Bulletin, the journal has a long history. It was published by the NSW Ministry of Health for nearly a quarter of a century. Responsibility for its publication transferred to the Sax Institute in 2014, and the journal receives guidance from an expert editorial board.
×
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