There are several conceptual frameworks, such as the doughnut economy, regenerative economies and the economy for the common good, that point to the same fundamental change: redefining the purpose of the economy. Today, that purpose is infinite growth, the maximisation of profits, production and accumulation, ignoring their negative environmental and social impacts. The alternatives propose that success be measured by other factors: democratic participation, equity, the eradication of poverty, human and planetary health and social cohesion. The question is no longer how much we grow but how well we live, and within what ecological limits.

These models also incorporate a preventive approach. Rather than spending resources on repairing the damage growth causes to mental health and the environment, including through climate disasters, the aim is to design systems that prevent such damage from the outset. It’s about acting upstream, not merely treating symptoms downstream.

And in contrast to the logic of ‘grow first, redistribute later’, which has failed in both its neoliberal and developmentalist forms, alternatives advocate for pre-distribution. This means intervening before inequality arises, not merely to alleviate it afterwards, including by diversifying forms of ownership and strengthening cooperative and community-based approaches to the commons. It’s not that redistribution is no longer necessary, but it cannot be the only mechanism.

There’s also a fundamental political difference. The current system treats citizens as consumers whose value lies in their purchasing power, rather than as political subjects with rights and the capacity to participate in decision-making. Alternative models require and promote more active, informed and deliberative participation.

Nowhere has a wellbeing economy been fully implemented, but there have been some partial advances. For example, the Wellbeing Economy Governments alliance, which includes Finland, Iceland, New Zealand, Scotland and Wales, among others, has begun to incorporate wellbeing frameworks into visions, public policies and budgets. This has enabled greater investment in care systems, education, environmental conservation, health and other public services.

The most frequently cited example is that of Wales, which in 2015 passed the Well-being of Future Generations Act. This law guides the government towards seven wellbeing objectives, none of which are economic growth. It also establishes the mandate of the Commissioner for Future Generations, a role initially held by Sophie Howe, which involves reviewing public policies to ensure they have a positive impact on future generations.

Sometimes progress is more visible at sub-national levels. The decentralisation experienced by Latin America over the last three decades has given municipalities greater resources and autonomy, and some cities have taken advantage of this space. Bogotá and Mexico City, for example, have implemented promising policies on care, education and health systems, with greater consideration for environmental impacts.

However, all these initiatives are implemented within broader economic structures that haven’t changed, and this comes at a cost. Those attempting to move in a different direction may lose competitiveness compared to those who don’t make the same commitments. That’s why institutional changes, on their own, are not enough. What’s needed is a systemic transformation.

Those who resist the most are, to a large extent, those who benefit most from the status quo. Major oil and gas corporations, whose profits depend on fossil fuels, actively hinder the energy transition. So do pharmaceutical companies, which benefit from a healthcare system focused on treatment rather than prevention, and large food production and retail companies, which prioritise maximising production and minimising costs, even if this has a high environmental impact. Corporations answer to their shareholders, not to the common good. The financial system reinforces all this, seeking to maximise financial returns, not environmental and social returns.

Even governments that have attempted to change these dynamics have faced powerful pressures when introducing environmental or labour regulations, including divestment, destabilisation campaigns and legal claims for potential future loss of profits.

This resistance reveals something important: the economy isn’t neutral. It’s not a level playing field. It’s an uneven, contested field, historically designed to favour those who hold power. The system isn’t broken. It’s doing exactly what it was designed to do. Recognising this is the first step towards changing it.

We need fiscal reforms to reduce inequality, new indicators of wellbeing to replace growth as the sole measure of success, greater investment in public goods and global financial and trade rules that don’t penalise global south countries.

But these institutional changes are not enough unless beliefs about the economy also change. There’s a great deal of cultural inertia and a lack of imagination regarding alternatives. The idea that ‘there’s no other way’ has been repeated until it has become second nature. That’s why a change in narrative is just as important as a change in policy.

And this is where civil society has a crucial role to play. It can act as a pressure group to amplify people’s voices, resist the worst impacts of the current system and highlight corporate irresponsibility. But perhaps its most important role is that of building a new narrative, by making visible what the system renders invisible, showing that alternatives already exist and connecting struggles that are currently fragmented. Sharing examples of innovative legislation or community-based ways of organising the economy fuels the idea that another model is possible and viable.

It’s no coincidence that governments defending the economic status quo also seek to close down and censor the space for civil society. Understanding civic space restrictions as part of the same logic that underpins the dominant economic system is essential to tackling it effectively.