This May, Reykjavik’s Harpa Concert Hall will host the Wellbeing Economy Forum, drawing together a diverse group of academics, business leaders, and policymakers. Their aim is to reform economic systems to reflect sustainable development goals and prioritise the wellbeing of future generations. The evening promises a jovial singalong, while daytime discussions will tackle the pressing need to re-evaluate current economic paradigms for the sake of shared prosperity.
Gatherings celebrating wellbeing economics are cropping up globally, intertwining paternalistic rhetoric with a burgeoning attendee enthusiasm that sometimes fuels conspiracy theories. The term ‘wellbeing economics’ has garnered attention since the Great Recession in 2007, spurring a shift in economic thought away from the once-dominant free-market neoclassical paradigm. Now, various competing schools of thought are emerging, each seeking to challenge established doctrines.
A diversity of economic thought is beneficial, fostering a rich tapestry of ideas. During my graduate studies in the 90s, while neoclassical theories were prevalent, other economic schools like Keynesian and Monetarist perspectives enriched discussions through constructive critique. Yet, these schools agreed on objective benchmarks like GDP to evaluate economic performance, a contrast to wellbeing economics, which advocates replacing such metrics with subjective measures focused on happiness and societal satisfaction.
Gaya Herrington, a prominent advocate for wellbeing economics, articulated in a TED Talk her vision to shift economic goals from mere growth to enhancing human and ecological wellbeing. She pointed out that in a wellbeing economy, actions across sectors should aim to meet our needs within the limits of our environment, differentiating between growth that enhances wellbeing and that which does not.
However, the pursuit of a single measure for wellbeing presents inherent challenges. Individuals at such economic forums may not be equipped to judge what constitutes true wellbeing for all. This mirrors the historical arrogance of rulers who believed they alone knew what was best for the populace, a notion countered by thinkers like Adam Smith, who championed personal responsibility in the pursuit of happiness.
Neoclassical economics possesses an understanding of its limitations; it accepts that its role is to produce goods and services based on individual desires rather than guarantee happiness. While economics can’t achieve the objectivity of hard sciences, it shouldn’t obscure itself with subjective aims like happiness, as top-down attempts often fail due to a lack of insight into individual experiences and aspirations.
Proponents of wellbeing economics rightly argue that life includes more than quantitative metrics, but their strategies often overlook historical lessons. Their ambition to centralise power to orchestrate happiness for all, irrespective of individual preferences, raises concern. Personally, I remain apprehensive, fearing I may belong to the camp desiring autonomy in defining my own happiness.
The Wellbeing Economy Forum in Reykjavik aims to reshape economic systems towards sustainability and wellbeing. While the movement seeks to redefine success beyond GDP and profits, it faces challenges in determining subjective measures of happiness. Critics warn against the centralisation of power required to ensure widespread wellbeing, emphasising the importance of individual autonomy in defining happiness and the limitations of a one-size-fits-all economic approach.
The Wellbeing Economy Forum in Reykjavik embodies the growing interest in redefining economic success in subjective terms, focusing on wellbeing rather than purely quantitative metrics. As this movement gains momentum, it raises profound questions about individual autonomy and the dangers of centralised economic planning. While the notion of prioritising wellbeing is compelling, the history of economic thought cautions us against imposing singular definitions of happiness, advocating instead for a respectful understanding of diverse human values and aspirations.
Original Source: thedailyeconomy.org
