What do you think?
Rate this book
Wellbeing Economy: Success in a World Without Growth
Economic growth is a constant mantra of politicians, economists and the media. Few understand what it is, but they love and follow it blindly. The reality is that since the global financial crisis, growth has vanished in the more industrialised economies and in the so-called developing countries. Politicians may be panicking, but is this really a bad thing? Using real-life examples and innovative research, acclaimed political economist Lorenzo Fioramonti lays bare society’s perverse obsession with economic growth by showing its many flaws, paradoxes and inconsistencies. He argues that the pursuit of growth often results in more losses than gains and in damage, inequalities and conflicts. By breaking free from the growth mantra, we can build a better society that puts the wellbeing of all at its centre. A wellbeing economy would have tremendous impact on everything we do, boosting small businesses and empowering citizens as the collective leaders of tomorrow.Wellbeing Economy is a manifesto for radical change in South Africa and beyond.
- GenresEconomics
224 pages, Kindle Edition
Published August 4, 2017
12 people are currently reading
142 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
January 28, 2018
I wanted to like this book. I really did. I have a lot of sympathy with the critique offered by the author and even more with the type of future he wants to contribute to. But the thinking is shoddy, full of holes, and ultimately unhelpful.
His critique of the growth economy equates economics and the obsession with growth. While there is some ideological basis for his attack, most of his critique is a weak version of the fully realized versions of his arguments. His critique amounts to a "straw man" argument where he has reduced Economics to a much more simplistic science that is easily to defeat in argument. While his may make him 'heroic' in the eyes of undergrads, when confronted with the reality of the global economy, it will leave them ill-equipped to see the nuance of the actual problems.
His specific attack on Adam Smith is an ad hominem attack which quite frankly is a form on extreme intellectual laziness. Like too many mainstream and heterodox economists, he feels comfortable holding forth on Smith while clearly never having read his work. Anyone with an ounce of intellectual integrity would withhold judgment until actually having read the work themselves, rather than relying on secondary sources. If you have read Smith in the original, it is clear that his 'invisible hand' argument is far more subtle than the ridiculous manner in which it is invoked.
If anything, the recommendations of what the "Wellbeing Economy" looks like are weaker than the critique of the "Growth Economy" amounting to little more than a jumble of statements of "wouldn't it be nice...". Statements like "wellbeing-infused trade will take mileage very seriously, prioritizing local and regional exchanges even when they cross borders, at the expense of national and global exchanges, which will be seen as less efficient and desirable". Lovely idea but how exactly?
At its heart, any economic system exists to solve the coordination problem. Resources are scarce; needs and wants are infinite. Communism sought to solve the problem through central planning; capitalism does so via money and the open market. Capitalism has many issues but it is hard to beat in terms of information efficiency. There are problems with the quality of this information, yes, and this has created huge social and environmental issues. Yes, all true. But if you want an alternative system, you have to solve the problem of coordination.
Instead, Fioramonti waves his hands at a series of "shiny ideas" - all of which have arisen in the current democratic, capitalist system he so despises. He totally misses the mutability of the objectives of the system. His "shiny ideas" amount to a small child showing off pretty beads with no practical way to string them together.
He returns often to the beauty of collaboration and peer-to-peer systems, and totally ignore that for all the Stack Overflows, and Wikipedias, there are also far more examples like 'Anonymous', cyber bullying and the severe and regressive attacks on feminists. While he occasionally cites social psychologists, he clearly has not immersed himself in the non-economic social sciences if he believes the "wisdom of crowds" is what we should stake our future on.
He gives really cute examples of allowing us to be in touch with what our taxes do. Lovely. But who is going to coordinate all that. And on what basis. And measuring the impact of any project or public policy is difficult and expensive. Oh, but money doesn't matter, he would say. Fine, the point is that it often takes more resources (time, effort, intellect) to monitor a system than to set it up. That is why monitoring has to be used selectively and efficiently. Promising every taxpayer that he can track his rands to their final impact is a seriously stupid idea, no matter how cute and collaborative it sounds.
There are many writers grappling with the issues of our current system, marshaling critiques and putting together pictures of how we can change. Quite frankly, this book compares very poorly to many of these. I read better and more thoroughly thought through alternative futures in science fiction (on a regular basis) than this book offers.
His critique of the growth economy equates economics and the obsession with growth. While there is some ideological basis for his attack, most of his critique is a weak version of the fully realized versions of his arguments. His critique amounts to a "straw man" argument where he has reduced Economics to a much more simplistic science that is easily to defeat in argument. While his may make him 'heroic' in the eyes of undergrads, when confronted with the reality of the global economy, it will leave them ill-equipped to see the nuance of the actual problems.
His specific attack on Adam Smith is an ad hominem attack which quite frankly is a form on extreme intellectual laziness. Like too many mainstream and heterodox economists, he feels comfortable holding forth on Smith while clearly never having read his work. Anyone with an ounce of intellectual integrity would withhold judgment until actually having read the work themselves, rather than relying on secondary sources. If you have read Smith in the original, it is clear that his 'invisible hand' argument is far more subtle than the ridiculous manner in which it is invoked.
If anything, the recommendations of what the "Wellbeing Economy" looks like are weaker than the critique of the "Growth Economy" amounting to little more than a jumble of statements of "wouldn't it be nice...". Statements like "wellbeing-infused trade will take mileage very seriously, prioritizing local and regional exchanges even when they cross borders, at the expense of national and global exchanges, which will be seen as less efficient and desirable". Lovely idea but how exactly?
At its heart, any economic system exists to solve the coordination problem. Resources are scarce; needs and wants are infinite. Communism sought to solve the problem through central planning; capitalism does so via money and the open market. Capitalism has many issues but it is hard to beat in terms of information efficiency. There are problems with the quality of this information, yes, and this has created huge social and environmental issues. Yes, all true. But if you want an alternative system, you have to solve the problem of coordination.
Instead, Fioramonti waves his hands at a series of "shiny ideas" - all of which have arisen in the current democratic, capitalist system he so despises. He totally misses the mutability of the objectives of the system. His "shiny ideas" amount to a small child showing off pretty beads with no practical way to string them together.
He returns often to the beauty of collaboration and peer-to-peer systems, and totally ignore that for all the Stack Overflows, and Wikipedias, there are also far more examples like 'Anonymous', cyber bullying and the severe and regressive attacks on feminists. While he occasionally cites social psychologists, he clearly has not immersed himself in the non-economic social sciences if he believes the "wisdom of crowds" is what we should stake our future on.
He gives really cute examples of allowing us to be in touch with what our taxes do. Lovely. But who is going to coordinate all that. And on what basis. And measuring the impact of any project or public policy is difficult and expensive. Oh, but money doesn't matter, he would say. Fine, the point is that it often takes more resources (time, effort, intellect) to monitor a system than to set it up. That is why monitoring has to be used selectively and efficiently. Promising every taxpayer that he can track his rands to their final impact is a seriously stupid idea, no matter how cute and collaborative it sounds.
There are many writers grappling with the issues of our current system, marshaling critiques and putting together pictures of how we can change. Quite frankly, this book compares very poorly to many of these. I read better and more thoroughly thought through alternative futures in science fiction (on a regular basis) than this book offers.
October 25, 2017
The future?
Thought-provoking and very readable musings of a transplant political economist recommended by South Africa government colleagues. I'd like to read more of his work.
Thought-provoking and very readable musings of a transplant political economist recommended by South Africa government colleagues. I'd like to read more of his work.
August 23, 2017
Challenge your thinking. Read this book. Some will find the concepts push on the boundaries of their comfort limits, others will know they've found a home after a long time thinking about different ways. The real change starts from what you do after you have finished reading this work.
January 6, 2018
The author, like a good commedian, manage to stirr up the reader’s emotions around many things that are wrong in the world today. He repeats himself too many times and besides quoting a very small sample of possible solutions, seems obsessed with smaal-scale renewable energy projects as a solution.
He is also wuite liberal in his interpretation and explanation of historic financial fact eg - the number of large companies listed on the NY stock exchange halfed in 25 years. This IS true, but not for his purported reasons of a failure of the market econmy - the regulations around listings have changed so much that companies don’t find it beneficial to belisted. Many are de-listing and carrying on their business in private. They still exist and operate in society
My biggest gripe is that he does not touch on the contribution that the massive growth in the human population makes to the planet ‘s ailments. Start there next time
He is also wuite liberal in his interpretation and explanation of historic financial fact eg - the number of large companies listed on the NY stock exchange halfed in 25 years. This IS true, but not for his purported reasons of a failure of the market econmy - the regulations around listings have changed so much that companies don’t find it beneficial to belisted. Many are de-listing and carrying on their business in private. They still exist and operate in society
My biggest gripe is that he does not touch on the contribution that the massive growth in the human population makes to the planet ‘s ailments. Start there next time
October 23, 2019
An alternative idea facing the current climate and mobility crisis etc, leaving "the fairy tale of eternal economic growth" and unconcious consumerism and move forward to contentment, concious, sustainable consumerism and the well being of our humanity.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews