The doughnut is on a roll: where next for doughnut economics?

Kate Raworth, Oxfam research colleague and host of the new ‘doughnut economics’ blog, updates us on her big idea, prior to Rio+20

My Oxfam discussion paper on social and planetary boundaries – aka the Doughnut – has gained a striking degree of traction in the debates running up to Rio+20. It’s been picked up by commentators such as George Monbiot, Grist and by the UN . The idea, like its namesake, appears to be sticky. That’s probably because it captures, in a very simple image, a vision of sustainable development which combines the compelling framework of planetary boundaries with the demands of human rights.

(and if you don’t know what I’m on about, here’s a four minute video tour to fill you in.)

The planetary boundaries framework may be compelling but the run-up to Rio has also prompted several interesting critiques of the concept, such as the proposal that we should focus on planetary opportunities rather than boundaries, and critiques from the Breakthrough Institute, including that most planetary boundaries are not actually planetary in scale, but have critical national or regional thresholds, such as for freshwater use (more on that below…).

So the debate will be lively, and I’m heading to (and tweeting from) Rio+20 to join it – but the idea of thinking about sustainable development through the lens of planetary and social boundaries has a life far beyond Rio. Here are four issues that I’m keen to explore further:

1. Rethinking economic development. If we take the idea of planetary boundaries and social boundaries as a starting point in pursuing prosperity, what are the implications for what economies should be aimed at? And what’s the evidence that ‘green growth’ and technological solutions can or cannot get us there?

2. Who’s pressuring the planet? Humanity has transgressed at least three of the planetary boundaries – but where’s that pressure coming from? What can data tell us about inequalities in using natural resources, within and between countries? And what are the implications for achieving social equity in the Doughnut?

3. Determining the social foundation. The 11 dimensions of the social foundation are illustrative, and are based on the top 11 social priorities raised by governments in their submissions to Rio+20. But they are by no means perfect. Critical dimensions such as personal security, housing and transport are missing, for starters, and all of these have important relations to resource availability, distribution and stress. Other dimensions, such as gender equality, are better seen as characteristics of all the other social dimensions, rather than separate dimensions in themselves. And what level of achievement should be considered as reaching the foundation? Some people have rightly pointed out that $1.25 per day is too low as an indicator of a decent level of income – but surely so too is $2. So what should a 2.0 version of the social foundation look like? Who should draw it up?

4. National doughnut analyses. The Breakthrough Institute’s critique that most planetary boundaries are not planetary is correct – many make more sense at the national or regional scale. But this point was set out in the original paper on planetary boundaries by Rockström and the other authors. And that makes national and regional analyses of planetary and social boundaries all the more interesting. So what would happen if you took the doughnut concept and applied it at the country, or even city, level? What would be the dimensions of a national social foundation, and what are the main stresses on a nation’s critical natural thresholds? Would this approach open up new perspectives, and could it help move forward national debates and policymaking on pathways for sustainable development?

As part of exploring these questions, I’ve just started a new blog, Doughnut Economics, focused on rethinking 21st century economics and equity through the lens of planetary and social boundaries. If you’ve got suggestions, critiques, contacts, ideas, or even answers, I’d love to hear them.

And if you are lucky (or crazy) enough to be in Rio next week, come along and debate the doughnut at Oxfam’s panel discussion on planetary and social boundaries, supported by EXPO Milano 2015, on 17th June, 9.30-11am, in IIED’s Fair Ideas conference (we’ve got a great line-up of speakers including Tim Jackson, author of Prosperity Without Growth – it promises to be a great debate).

Kate Raworth is Senior Researcher at Oxfam – link here to her new blog, Doughnut Economics, and follow her on Twitter @KateRaworth

From planetary ceilings to social floors: can we live inside the doughnut?

This is a guest post and a request for comments and suggestions by Kate Raworth, Oxfam’s Senior Researcher, who is doing some really interesting thinking on new economics and the ‘post 2015 agenda’ – i.e. what comes after the MDGs.

In 2009, 29 of the world’s leading Earth-system scientists drew up a set of nine ‘planetary boundaries’: critical natural processes that we must not breach if we want to maintain Earth’s stable state of the last 10,000 years. Like what? Like climate change, ozone depletion, and biodiversity loss.  No small fry. They got bold and attempted a first quantification of these boundaries (eg setting a climate change boundary of 350ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere). And the area within these boundaries, they said, define “a safe operating space for humanity”.

Hmm. Environmentally safe, yes, but would it be socially just? After all, an environmentally safe space for humanity could be compatible with a multitude of human conditions, some of which may be appalling. Are there not also social boundaries – perhaps freedom from extreme income inequality, or from illiteracy – that we must not breach if we want to achieve social justice and a stable international order? Superimposing these social boundaries onto the planetary boundaries would define a safe and socially just operating space for humanity: no longer a circle, but a doughnut, bounded by an outer environmental ceiling and an inner social floor.

Planetary and social boundaries: can we live inside the doughnut?

What if 29 (or so…) international development thinkers and doers got together to propose such a set of social boundaries. What would they come up with? Could they be quantified? And could this become a useful framework for developing sustainable development goals beyond 2015?

The idea provokes questions. How should social boundaries be determined? They could, for instance, be derived from human rights, human capabilities, the Millennium Development Goals, multi-dimensional measures of poverty, a mix of all these – or some other source? And how many should there be? (nine would be neat, perhaps too neat…).

But back up a minute. Can we really put Earth systems and social systems in one framework? There are obvious differences. Earth systems existed quite happily without humans, and have been in the safe space for 10,000 years. Social systems don’t exist without us, and have never been fully in the just space (though a lot of people are working on that). And while Earth systems can tolerate a degree of stress, human rights mean that the outcomes for individuals in social systems matter inherently, not only because of their cumulative implications for social dynamics.

Yes, there are differences – but there are surprising similarities too. Both planetary boundaries and social boundaries are part global, but also part regional, or even local. They both have thresholds or danger zones that are difficult to identify (until you cross them…). Quantifying the safe boundaries involves normative judgements about acceptable levels of stress and risk – whether planetary or social. And both sets have interdependencies: staying on the safe side of one boundary depends, in part, on staying on the safe side of others (eg climate change is shaped by land-use change, illiteracy is shaped by gender inequality).

So if this idea has merit, what difference could it make? Three insights become clear:

First, planetary and social boundaries together imply a purpose for ‘economic progress’: to pursue human well-being, while remaining or moving back inside the doughnut – below the environmental ceiling, and above the social floor. Ecological economists have long sought to situate the economy within environmental limits; feminist economists (and others) have highlighted the social (and non-monetised) consequences of economic activity. Planetary and social boundaries help bring these ideas together in a simple, visual way (is this the birth of Doughnut Economics?…).

Second, how we get inside that doughnut involves careful balancing and timing between planetary and social boundaries. According to Earth-system scientists, we are three times over the global limit in our use of nitrogen (it’s polluting lakes, rivers and coasts, and the life within them, and contributing to climate change). But if we cut back by two thirds overnight, say by drastically reducing fertilizer use, the immediate consequences for global food supply, hunger, and poverty would be devastating. Looking at planetary and social boundaries together helps make these challenges starkly clear.

Third, non-monetary metrics must clearly be given more weight in policy making. Economic progress cannot be assessed only – or even primarily – in monetary terms (such as incomes per capita and GDP growth rates). Where the edges are, and whether or not we are hitting them, matters for stability and justice. Policymakers must take more notice of, and be more accountable for, the impact of economic activity on planetary and social boundaries, defined in ‘natural’ and ‘social’ metrics, such as species extinction rates, and unemployment rates.

So there’s the pitch. What do you think? Does the idea of social boundaries make sense, and does it make a difference? What should those social boundaries be, and could they be quantified? And could planetary and social boundaries help define Sustainable Development Goals for post 2015?

Anyone for doughnuts?