What Is the Economy For?
The Shape of an Economy That Knows When to Stop
Every economy in history has been built around one implicit question — but Kate Raworth thinks we've been asking the wrong one.
The Idea
For most of the twentieth century, economics had a single obsession: growth. GDP goes up, things are good. GDP goes down, things are bad. The graph always points right and upward, like an arrow with nowhere to land. What Raworth noticed — and what made her 2017 book Doughnut Economics genuinely disruptive — is that this framing has no concept of enough. It treats the economy like a plane that must keep accelerating or it will fall from the sky, with no thought given to where it might be going or whether the passengers are comfortable. Her alternative is geometric. Picture a doughnut. The hole in the middle represents what she calls the social foundation — the minimum conditions for a decent human life: access to food, healthcare, housing, political voice, education. Fall into the hole and people are left behind. The outer ring is the ecological ceiling — the planetary boundaries beyond which we destabilise the climate, acidise the oceans, and collapse the systems that make life possible. Overshoot that ring and we erode the very conditions the economy depends on. The goal, in her framing, is not to grow forever but to thrive within the doughnut — meeting the needs of all people without exceeding the means of the planet. It reorients the central question of economics from 'how much did we produce?' to 'how well are people living, and at what cost to the world?' That sounds almost obvious when stated plainly. The fact that it felt radical when she published it tells you something important about how narrow our economic imagination had become.
In the World
Amsterdam took the idea seriously enough to actually try it. In 2020, at the height of the pandemic, the city became the first in the world to formally adopt the Doughnut as a framework for urban policy. The city government commissioned Raworth's organisation — Doughnut Economics Action Lab — to produce a city portrait: a detailed map of where Amsterdam sat inside the doughnut, where it was falling short of its social foundation, and where it was overshooting its ecological ceiling. What they found was humbling. Amsterdam scored reasonably well on social indicators by global standards, but its ecological footprint was enormous — most of it invisible to residents, embedded in the supply chains that delivered their food, clothing, and electronics from elsewhere in the world. The city wasn't just consuming its own resources; it was displacing its costs onto other communities and future generations. The doughnut portrait didn't produce a policy checklist. That's partly the point. Raworth's framework is more diagnostic than prescriptive — it tells you what to look at, not exactly what to do. But it changed what Amsterdam's planners treated as success. Housing policy began accounting for carbon. Procurement decisions started weighing supply chain conditions. The question 'is this good for growth?' started competing with a harder, more honest question: 'good for whom, and at what cost?' Several other cities — Copenhagen, Portland, Melbourne — have since run similar exercises. None of them have solved the tension. But naming it clearly turns out to be a necessary first step.
Why It Matters
Most of us never consciously signed up for the belief that endless growth is the point of an economy. But it shapes almost every policy debate we encounter — the anxiety when growth slows, the way recession is treated as catastrophe regardless of what caused it or who it affects, the instinct to measure national success in aggregate output rather than distributed wellbeing. Raworth's framework offers a different intuition to carry around. Not that growth is always bad — sometimes people genuinely need more — but that growth is a means, not an end, and treating it as an end produces systems that optimise for the wrong thing. An economy can be growing while millions fall into the doughnut's hole. It can be growing while burning through the ecological ceiling. The number going up tells you something, but not everything. The practical takeaway isn't that you need to rethink macroeconomic policy before breakfast. It's smaller than that: when you hear economic news framed purely in terms of growth, you're now equipped to ask the next question — growing what, for whom, and at what cost?
A Question to Ponder
If the economy you live in were measured not by how much it produces but by how well it keeps people above the social floor without breaching the ecological ceiling — what would look different, and what would you personally want to change?
Get a new one of these every morning.
Start learning with Thinkable