Beyond economic growth: LSE makes the case for radical alternatives

Economic growth has dominated policy thinking for decades. But a growing body of researchers at the London School of Economics and Political Science is now arguing that it’s time to seriously fund and study what comes next — and that the stakes couldn’t be higher.

The problem with GDP as a goal

For most of the 20th century, gross domestic product was treated as a near-sacred measure of national success. Governments chased it. Voters expected it. And critics who questioned it were largely pushed to the margins of serious debate. That’s changing. A new wave of academic work is challenging whether perpetual growth on a finite planet is even coherent as a long-term objective, let alone desirable.

Researchers point to stark data: global carbon emissions have continued rising even during periods of so-called green growth, and wealth inequality in G7 nations has widened significantly since the 1980s despite decades of consistent GDP expansion. The numbers tell a complicated story that GDP alone simply can’t capture.

What alternatives actually look like

So what are the options? Economists and social scientists are exploring several frameworks. Degrowth — a planned, equitable reduction in production and consumption in wealthy economies — is one. Doughnut economics, developed by Oxford economist Kate Raworth, offers another model, aiming to keep societies within a “safe and just space” defined by 12 social foundations and nine planetary boundaries. Then there’s the wellbeing economy approach, already being piloted in Scotland, New Zealand, and Iceland through the Wellbeing Economy Governments partnership, known as WEGo.

These aren’t fringe ideas anymore.

“The question is no longer whether we need alternatives to growth-centric models,” said one senior policy researcher familiar with the LSE initiative, “but whether our institutions are willing to fund the rigorous, long-term research those alternatives actually require.”

The research gap — and why it matters

That funding question is critical. Traditional economic research receives substantial institutional backing, with bodies like the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council distributing roughly £220 million annually across social science disciplines. But post-growth and degrowth research remains comparatively underfunded, occupying a narrow slice of that total. LSE academics are now pushing for dedicated research programs that treat alternatives to GDP-focused growth as legitimate, primary subjects of inquiry — not footnotes.

And it’s not just an academic concern. Policymakers making decisions about housing, healthcare, and climate strategy over the next 20 years will need evidence-based frameworks that go well beyond quarterly growth figures.

What happens next

The push from LSE arrives at a moment when several European governments are quietly reconsidering how they measure national progress. France’s parliament voted in 2015 to include wellbeing indicators in official reporting. But implementation has been slow and politically contested.

Still, momentum is building. If major research institutions begin treating post-growth economics as a first-tier academic priority, the policy conversation that follows could look very different by 2035. Whether governments are ready to listen is another question entirely.