"... people who cannot meet their most basic needs; that is where you want to see the growth of their incomes, and the growth of public services that serve them, right? ... That's where - if anywhere in the world - we want to see 'economic growth' ... and it's got to be distributive, so it's actually shared, and it's got to be regenerative, so it doesn't destroy the planet as it happens."
#KateRaworth, 2023
https://shows.acast.com/leading/episodes/6482091e1899590011aaaf07
What if “growth” isn’t the best metaphor here?
Would “increase” in incomes be more useful and straightforward?
And what alternatives to “growth in public services” could we play with? That phrasing implies (at least to my eye) increasing institutional provision of services, and increasing bureaucratic institutions (not to mention the relationship between citizens as individual consumers and state as provider). What if we focused on community self-reliance, and collective sufficiency? What if we talk instead about enriching social networks in place, and increasing the density of social connections?
@scottmatter
> What if “growth” isn’t the best metaphor here?
I recommend you listen to the podcast interview I'm quoting from. I suspect you will like a lot of what Kate Raworth has to say ; )
Probably yes. I’ve read her book and done some research / teaching with it over the past couple of years.
@scottmatter @strypey
I like the realism of the doughnut model. As a layperson, my apprehension is about the size of the doughnut, especially in high-demand economies.
@tetrislife
> the size of the doughnut
... is determined by the boundary conditions. What's within the carrying capacity of the biosphere (the outer edge), and redistributive enough to prevent avoidable poverty (the inner edge). That's my understanding of the model anyway.
@scottmatter