Authored by Nic Sharp & Máté Tenke
This piece was originally published in the flash philosophy section of Contralytic's Interdisciplinary Philosophy Journal, Issue No.2 on the theme of circularity.
To learn more, or pick-up, see here: https://www.contralytic.co.uk/journal
As our current economic system simultaneously over and under-shoots humanity’s resources, resulting in both the degradation of ecological boundaries and our social foundation, Kate Raworth’s Doughnut Economics (2017a) argues for a moral reorientation of current economic thinking to solve this dual-challenge. Raworth initiates this reorientation in the tradition of pre-positivist economists – who sought to actualise their moral theories via economic thinking – by asking:
“What if we started economics with humanity’s long-term goals, and then sought out the economic thinking that would enable us to achieve them?” (ibid: 10)
That goal is to solve the dual-challenge by “ensuring prosperity for all within the means of our planet” (ibid: 26). This is motivated by Raworth’s endorsement of an ‘Economists’ Oath’, in analogy tothe medical professions’ Hippocratic Oath, to re-align economic thinking to a professional ethical code that is most conducive to achieving humanity’s long-term goal.[1]
Raworth’s interpretation of such an Oath begins with: “First, act in service to human prosperity in a flourishing web of life, recognizing all that it depends upon” (ibid: 161). Thus the outline of her argument for this moral re-orientation goes: If economics is to serve our long-term goals, and our long-term goals are to solve the dual-challenge, then our economic thinking ought to act in service to entities which have human-prosperity-generating properties, and recognise the web of life upon which those entities depend. Under this delineation, the Oath can be understood as eliciting moral commitment to the following two principles: a principle of ‘humanitarian’ benefice, whereby our economic thinking is morally committed to the service of prosperity-generating social foundations for all humans; and a principle of ‘planetary’ non-maleficence, whereby our economic thinking is morally committed to recognising the web of life which our planets’ ecological boundaries depends upon. Between these two principles lies the ethical reorientation required for a new economic thinking to help solve the dual-challenge: the doughnut (see figure 1 below). Within the space between the outer-ecological and inner-social boundary lines – which can be said to signify the Oaths’ elicited principles – lies the doughnut itself. This serves as a moral road-map to humanities’ long-term goal, in achieving “an ecologically safe and socially just space in which humanity can thrive” (ibid: 295).

The markers outside of the doughnuts’ boundaries presents a data visualisation of the extent to which the dual-challenge is in violation of humanities social and ecological limits.[2] With Raworths’ morally motivated economics, the underlying structure of her argument might be thus far understood as ‘ought implies can’; with the ‘ought’ component delineated by the Economists’ Oath, and the ‘can’ component explicated by the kind of economic thinking she develops to help achieve life in the doughnuts’ safe and just space. This latter component comes in the form of three viable corrections, that Raworth argues can be implemented to align our current economic thinking to the Oath, and help solve the dual-challenge: non-growth, redistribution and regenerative design (2017a: 104-133).
Firstly, evict the “cuckoo goal” of GDP growth from the nest. This supposed metric of economic success paradoxically measures the destruction and re-building of houses as net-positive GDP growth, purely in virtue of involving monetary exchange. Meanwhile child-care, an undeniably plausible process of value-creation – without which any economic activity would be impossible – is counter-intuitively omitted. Hence, GDP growth is an unsuitable index and policy objective if humanity’s long-term goal is to be achieved. Or as Raworth puts it: “what we need are economies that make us thrive, whether or not they grow”, not economies “that need to grow, whether or not they make us thrive” (ibid: 25).
Second, a form of redistribution of income and sources of wealth – such as land, enterprise, technology, knowledge and control over money creation – can be implemented in alignment with the Oath’s principle of ‘humanitarian’ benefice (ibid: 112-122). This, in turn, will increase social equality and have a positive effect on the prosperity of democracies, socio-economic stability, environmental protection in addition to public health and happiness (ibid: 109-110). Equally, “if large-scale actors dominate an economic network by squeezing out the number and diversity of small and medium players” (ibid: 111), then we will be more vulnerable to collapsing social foundations, as well as the unpredictable effects of climate change.
Lastly, regenerative design can be implemented, alongside redistribution, in alignment with the Oath’s principle of ‘planetary’ non-maleficence. Our current degenerative linear economy functions based on the principle of “take-make-use-lose”, where materials are extracted, turned into products, used, usually for a short period of time, and then thrown away. All stages of the process cause vast amounts of environmental harm. Thus, what we need is a circular system in which biological nutrients (i.e. soil, plants) and technical materials (i.e. plastics, metals) can be repeatedly reused and up-cycled, and where all products and production processes are designed for “easy collection and disassembly, leading to their refurbishment and resale, or the reuse of all their parts” (ibid: 131). Switching from degenerative to regenerative design is an exciting challenge that will require as much human ingenuity as humbleness. Economists must recognize that nature is not a disposable “resource” at the service of GDP growth but an intricate system that we are all dependent upon. As Raworth puts it: “far from being a closed, circular loop, the economy is an open system with constant inflows and outflows of matter and energy” (Raworth 2017: 53). If we destroy the ecosystem which this matter and energy comes from, we destroy the economy itself – our only chance at solving the dual-challenge.
To learn more about doughnut economics, visit the ‘Doughnut Economics Action Lab’ website at: doughnuteconomics.org
Footnotes:
[1] The ‘Economists’ Oath’ was initially conceived of and developed by DeMartino (2005, 2011); however, Raworth’s interpretive utilization of the Oath is highly effective in establishing and motivating her underlying economic-thinking of the doughnut (see figure 1 in endnotes).
[2] For a more detailed breakdown of the doughnut, see Raworth’s appendix 2017a (295-299). For open access to the doughnut’s data and its sources, see Raworth 2017b (48).
Endnotes:
References:
DeMartino, G.F. (2005). A Professional Ethics Code for Economists. Challenge. Volume 48, Number 4: 88–104.
DeMartino, G.F. (2011). The Economist’s Oath: on the need for and content of professional economic ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Raworth, K. (2017a). Doughnut Economics: seven ways to think like a 21st century economist. London: Penguin Random House.
Raworth, K. (2017b). A Doughnut for the Anthropocene: humanity’s compass in the 21st Century. The Lancet Planetary Health. Volume 1, Issue 2: e48 - e49
Richardson, K. et al, (2023). Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries. Science Advances. Volume 9, Number 37.eadh2458.
コメント