Thought Leaders
Kate Rayworth

Doing the Doughnut at the G20?

Burgess COMMENTARY

Peter Burgess

Doing the Doughnut at the G20? This weekend the G20 are meeting in Argentina, with the aim (they say) of ‘building consensus for fair and sustainable development’. Since they collectively generate 85% of global GDP, whether they do or don’t transform their economies will profoundly affect us all. So how close to the Doughnut’s safe and just space are the G20? Here’s one way of assessing it, using the pioneering national doughnut analysis by Dan O’Neill, Andrew Fanning, Julia Steinberger and Will Lamb at the University of Leeds. Using the best-available, internationally comparable data, they scaled the global concept of the Doughnut down to the national level for over 150 countries (only including those for which there were sufficient data – as a result, Saudi Arabia is unfortunately missing from this G20 analysis. The EU28 group is also not available for this analysis). In essence, national doughnuts aim to reflect the extent to which a country is meeting its people’s essential needs while at the same time ensuring that its use of Earth’s resources remains within its share of the planet’s biophysical boundaries. Since Argentina is hosting the talks, let’s take its national doughnut as an illustration. The aim is to fill the centre circle in blue, while not overshooting the green ring of the biophysical boundary. Like many countries worldwide, Argentina is both falling short on some social dimensions while already overshooting multiple biophysical boundaries. The methodology for these national doughnuts is a work in progress, of course, but the indicators and data underlying them are improving year-on-year, and when taken as an overview of 150 countries, the initial analysis reveals some valuable 21st century insights. In the chart below (made in collaboration with Andrew Fanning), humanity’s sweet spot – living in the Doughnut – lies in the top left-hand corner: a place where all social thresholds are met, without transgressing any biophysical boundaries. So what does this 150 country overview reveal? Three insights jump out. 1. We are all developing countries now. The Doughnut challenge turns all countries – including every member of the G20 – into ‘developing countries’ because no country in the world can say that it is even close to meeting the needs of all of its people within the means of the planet. (If you are wondering which is that one country closer than the rest, it’s Viet Nam – but is it heading for the Doughnut, or moving straight past it?) 2. New development pathways need new names. There are currently three broad clusters of countries making very different 21st century journeys, as labeled in the version of the diagram below: A. Countries that are barely crossing any planetary boundaries, but are falling very far short on meeting people’s needs, including G20 members India and Indonesia. The development path that these nations must now pursue has never taken before. Copying the degenerative industrial path of today’s high-income countries (Group C), would most likely collapse Earth’s life-supporting systems. B. Many middle-income, ‘emerging’ economies – including G20 members like Brazil, Russia, China, Argentina and South Africa – are both falling short on social needs while already crossing biophysical boundaries. These countries are now making future-defining investments in urbanization, energy systems and transport networks. Will these infrastructural investments take them further away from the doughnut, or start bringing them towards it? C. Today’s high-income countries ­– including G20 members like the US, UK, France, Germany and the EU 28 itself – cannot be called developed, given that their resource consumption is greatly overshooting Earth’s boundaries and, in the process, undermining prospects for all other countries. These high-income nations, too, are on an unprecedented developmental journey: to sustain good living standards while moving back within Earth’s biophysical boundaries. D. No country is yet in sweet-spot cluster D (for Doughnut!) – so how many years until some are there, and which will make it there first? Given that the labels ‘developing’ and ‘developed’ no longer make sense in the 21st century context, how can we best rename these four clusters of countries? In comments on this blog, and on Twitter, please do share suggestions for inventive and memorable names for these very different country clusters facing the Doughnut challenge. Naming is framing, so let’s rename and reframe the future of development… 3. Transformative goals demand transformative approaches. Given that none of these three development paths have been pursued before – let alone have yet been achieved – it would be bizarre to think that last century’s economic theories, policy prescriptions and business models would equip us for what lies ahead. Getting into the Doughnut is our generational challenge and it demands transformational mindsets, models and action in economics, policymaking, and business. As the world’s major economies, the G20 should be leading this transformation, with countries starting in all three country clusters. But since a key current criterion of G20 membership is having a large GDP, each country is geopolitically locked in to pursuing GDP growth to keep its place in the annual G20 Family Photo. So for leadership on the Doughnut Challenge, look, instead, to the Wellbeing Economy Governments, or #WeGO, an emerging grouping of countries – among them New Zealand, Scotland and Iceland – that are focusing on economic wellbeing and have a far greater chance of putting regenerative and distributive policies into practice. Let me leave the G20 with the question that this summit should be asking: Share this: EmailPrint More Posted by: Kate Raworth // General // December 1, 2018 Post navigation← Economic Man vs. Humanity: a puppet rap battle 17 thoughts on “Doing the Doughnut at the G20?” Henry Leveson-Gower 1 December 2018 at 12:22 Hi Kate Great approach and love the idea of rethinking the developed/developing dichotomy. One element you might also think of incorporating maybe state capability. Great book I am reading https://global.oup.com/academic/product/building-state-capability-9780198747482?cc=gb&lang=en&. I found it quite shocking in terms of the lack of progress in building state capability but that may just reflect my ignorance. It seems to me that a key differentiation must be between countries with capable states and those without them. Without a capable state, it seems very difficult to see how a government can move a country to within the doughnut. The question then arises to what extent companies (presumably generally highly capable) acting within such states have a duty to support the state moving to within the doughnut (rather than the opposite). Then there is a question over their purpose and accountability… Given lack of state capability in most countries in spite of or maybe because of developed countries actions, it seems unlikely that they can be the ones driving the transformation. Cheers Henry Reply Jo Miller 1 December 2018 at 16:08 Hi Henry, A really interesting perspective. The question for me (which perhaps reflects my ignorance :-)) is: what do we mean by a ‘capable state’? It sounds like it ought the be a useful thing to have in order to enable the right type of activities to emerge, but what would it look like? Thoughts? NB – I come with a circular economy interest – a vision influenced by how living systems work – waste = food, renewable energy, regenerative by design etc. A set of simple systems principles / attributes which focus on the maintenance and regeneration of stocks and flows of resources, energy, knowledge and money. The current weight of activity in this ‘collective school of thought’ is unfortunately primarily around closing loops and new ‘leasing’ models where businesses can extract more value from ever limited resources, with little detailed work on the wider societal benefits of this thinking (Kate’s distributed economy being an exception). Jo Miller Reply Henry Leveson-Gower 1 December 2018 at 17:24 Hi Jo, yes an interesting question. The first test the authors did was send 10 mis-addressed to all 100+ countries and see which ones were returned to sender in line with agreed international policies. So the question was whether a state could implement an uncontroversial international policy and of course most couldn’t. Letters were never returned. This is then generalised to any form of government service or regulation system through other research. The proposition is that the ‘Developed’ countries insist on what they see as best practice policies and programmes but ‘developing’ countries don’t have the capacity to deliver them. They are inappropriate for the context. Developing countries then become trapped in a system where they have to ‘pretend’ to meet developed country requirements on paper to keep aid, investment, lending etc flowing while actually not delivering real on ground benefits. They tick the boxes. The result is not good for anyone, a dysfunctional system. If anyone tries to break out of it, they show the truth up and so are seen as a danger and eliminated! So in terms of your interest, any circular economy system developed in the North and applied to the South would almost certainly fail but look as though it wasn’t. More generally any proposal that requires governments to implement policies to meet say greenhouse gas targets or protect forestry etc would be likely to fail even if it didn’t look like it. The suggested answer is bottom up problem solving out of which institutions emerge… I am though only a bit into the book! cheers Henry Reply Gulin Yucel 1 December 2018 at 12:33 Great analysis and interpretation Kate.. thank you for sharing. Gulin Yucel Istanbul Reply Wim Nusselder 1 December 2018 at 12:51 Go #WeGO! Leadership is not primarily/exclusively to be expected from governments/countries, though. What other collective actors that transcend nations are in a position to lead the way & our thinking & our methodology? Who can best show the doughnut to be a reality? Reply Dichasium 1 December 2018 at 14:07 Who can best show the doughnut to be a reality? Is there even a ‘best’ way? So many are trying. ER are trying to unite us. Even if some can ‘lead the way’, who/how can it actually be done sufficiently? Maybe some learning can be used but not, apparently, without calamity on a massive scale? Reply Steve Clarke 1 December 2018 at 12:53 Fascinating. thanks for sharing Reply Les Gunbie 1 December 2018 at 12:58 Love it, love it, love it. Can we find a way to link up with Extinction Rebellion folks as ER internationalises. This country-by-country analysis provides a clear ‘target’ for their proposed Citizens’ Assemblies. https://theecologist.org/2018/nov/29/extinction-rebellion-uk-ghana Reply Ian Barrett 1 December 2018 at 13:04 Hi Kate, I can see the O’Neill approach adds something, but the metrics chosen are a bit iffy. On the UK analysis discrimination is rife for many equality groups and sub-groups: BAME and disabled people in terms of employment, young black males in terms of criminal justice, disabled people in terms of poverty/health/care, single mums in terms of income. There’s nothing on homelessness, job security and income inequality. And land-use change – not sure how this is measured – doesn’t appear to address issues around habitat quality and protection or loss of biodiversity. If one wants to try and use this methodology to set policy directions to move the UK into the donut, then far more detail and some different measures are needed. How about % of people receiving the real Living Wage or above the Poverty Line? Reply Mark 1 December 2018 at 13:22 thoughts on names; A – Seed countries, their doughnuts are still small and we don’t know how they will grow. B – Cog countries, their doughnuts are spiky and irregular. C – Supernova countries, they have exploded past sustainable limits in a bright but ultimately short lived and self destructive manner D – Doughnut countries – doing it right. Reply Pingback: Doughnut economics metric | Community Action for Spaceship Earth Nathan Hunt 1 December 2018 at 14:13 Great article and analysis. I normally the Global Footprint Network’s HDI vs Eco Footprint to show the magic sector to aim for in development, but might even prefer this . Guess the descriptors and pathways should be food themed: ABCD = Hungry, Needy, Greedy, Happy. ABCD = Eat more, Eat wiser, Eat less, Eat well. Reply todd benson 1 December 2018 at 14:15 Hi-I have a comment about Canada’s position on the graph…living in Toronto, and seeing first hand how many folks are homeless, needing medical/psychological care(being homeless, go figure!)…and of course you see the economic inequality folks here are willing to tolerate…I just don’t see this as sustainable. We are inside the graph’s sweet spot socially but outside the biophysical boundary…the US too. I see homeless folks, some of whom are walking the city at 70 plus years old and pushing a little shopping buggy around with everything they have left in the world (besides their misery)…I don’t suppose they see THEIR Canada as being ‘equitable’ and ‘sustainable’… Reply David Norris 1 December 2018 at 16:38 Kate, you are awesome. Thank you so much for putting this together. I feel much stronger to advocate for change when I’m informed; thank you for better arming me! Reply ing. Bill Holdsworth 1 December 2018 at 16:45 Good to hear from you Kate. I did try hard to get you engaged with the Dutch city of Nijmegen who are this years designated Green City of Europe. But have fallen down on a number of issues. I was waiting for your response but it seems to have got lost. The whole architectural community of our different nations need to step up to the mark. They have also lost their way as to designing for health and cities that are carbon neutral. A possibility has emerged where I can kick-start a series of lectures at a University School of Architecture in London. Doughnut economics will be an integral part of it. Sadly as I enter my 90th year with over 65 years of eco-design thinking, writing and developing many people seem to not wish to reply to any pitches. I still have my ‘marbles’ and constructive and visionary thinking. Reply Barbara 1 December 2018 at 17:03 Thank you Kate for this great post ! All countries are “DOUGHNUTTING COUNTRIES”, when they have not yet reached the optimal doughnut formulated per country. When they have reached the optimal Doughnut, they are called “DOUGHNUT COUNTRY” Reply Peter Burgess 1 December 2018 at 17:28 I have liked the ‘doughnut’ concept for some time … and have been trying to think how its foundation could be used to strengthen the processes that are used to ‘manage’ the global socio-enviro-economic system. I graduated from Cambridge in 1961 and am now ‘post-career’ and unconstrained by any institution. My formal training is in engineering, economics and accountancy. My experience has been as a corporate CFO and consulting in development assistance and humanitarian relief. I see better metrics as a key to a getting to a better world. More and more GDP and bigger profits (to increase stock prices and wealth) without equally powerful metrics for social progress and environmental impact guarantees disaster. The doughnut thinking embraces this in a useful way … but it must be translated in a way that enables decision making … we need what I call management metrics. Country level is interesting, but not actionable. Somehow everything must be coherently numbered at a much more granular level … the individual, the family, the community, the city, the country. The same framing of numbering should also be deployed for organizations (for profit, not-for-profit, governmental) and also for processes and products. Every discreet entity should be numbered using the concept that a beginning balance sheet for all the capitals is changed by activities … similar to a P&L account … to become a new balance sheet for all the capitals. This is how business manages for profit … I argue that a similar construct can be used to manage within the socio-enviro-economic system. Bottom line … the world will run fine when almost 8 billion people get on the same wave to do everything in a sustainable way …. and the rich few people and companies get to understand that their behavior has been and continues to be unsustainable and society is going to know about it and hold them accountable (including clawing back accumulated wealth to pay for the environmental remediation that is going to be essential and hugely expensive). I like the doughnut … I see it as a foundation for a lot more! Doughnut Economics Why Growth Is Not Enough Latest blog post Doing the Doughnut at the G20? Subscribe to Blog via Email Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. Email Address Email Address Contact & RSS Email RSS Facebook Twitter Twitter My Tweets Links Global Dashboard Paul Gilding's Blog Poverty to Power Towards 9 billion Unlearning Economics Archives Archives Categories business Care economy Ecological economics General Rethinking economic growth Social inequality