A strategic framework for aligning degrowth, wellbeing, and doughnut economics into a credible path for systemic change By Erin Remblance & Kasper Benjamin Reimer Bjørkskov
Brilliant diagnosis of the fragmentation problem. I call it the Tower of Babel problem. You're right that we need alignment without collapsing into co-optable narratives.
But your "change minds first, build power second" sequence misses the coordination infrastructure layer.
You don't change minds - you relate to what people already know. These 300+ movements (there are SO many beyond just the four mentioned that are primed to coordinate) aren't confused about their direction. They're stuck in a coordination problem because they lack shared language, stories, and timing mechanisms.
The neoliberals didn't win by "building power" as a separate step. They built coordination infrastructure - think tanks, media relationships, coordinated messaging calendars. The power emerged FROM coordination, not before it. Coordination IS power. (And a recent AI development has the same emergent shape as this you might be fascinated to know, but this is still insider info atm)
We've run experiments this year proving this works in a specific order: coordinated storytelling across movements using bridging language (wellbeing economics, community wealth) creates frequency illusion effects that make alternatives feel inevitable. Viral content hitting 100K+ consistently because we're not "changing minds" - we're showing people solutions they already want exist everywhere simultaneously.
And most importantly, providing actionable pathways that fractally scale in small moves, because this is not only inspiring people to say "this is the kind of movement that changes world history," but giving them permission to take those actions. And that's where real systemic change emerges.
The missing piece you're pointing toward isn't better theory. It's coordination technology - shared rhythms, bridging terminology, and timing mechanisms that let these movements amplify each other without requiring ideological consensus.
Happy to share frameworks if useful. We're building this infrastructure now.
I have run the biggest movement in Denmark and an mobilized and entire industry not to fight regulation but to demand it. The key to this was what we point to in the essay. To learn more see this https://youtu.be/KkipCp1GbFI
I think alignment around a “shared direction” is a lot easier than a “shared theory of change”, and doubt the proponents of neoliberalism ever agreed on a common theory of change (although I see it might appear so in hindsight).
After reading the essay I am not sure what you propose in practical terms. Who should sit down and agree on a theory of change? And would that theory apply to the whole world? One theory of change for Africa, China, USA, Russia, and the EU seems unreasonable to me.
Personally, as a European, I would suggest the EU starts defining a vision for a post-growth EU economy with inputs from all member states and cultural groups. That would, I imagine, prepare the ground for systemic change.
You're exactly right - shared direction without requiring shared theory is the key. Neoliberals coordinated around outcomes (deregulation, privatization, market primacy) while maintaining different philosophical justifications.
Your question 'who should sit down' reveals the old model: assuming coordination requires central authority deciding for everyone. That's the top-down approach you mention, and it creates the exact problems the essay diagnoses - co-option by existing power structures.
Coordination infrastructure works differently. It's not about convening authorities to agree on theory. It's about bridging language that lets movements recognize they're working toward the same outcomes, timing mechanisms for coordinated action (like how #MeToo created cascade effects without central planning), and shared storytelling rhythms that create frequency illusion
This doesn't require one theory for Africa vs EU vs China. It requires movements in each context coordinating locally while using compatible language globally. Worker cooperatives in Kenya and Colorado don't need the same implementation - they need to recognize each other as part of the same transformation.
And we've done experiments, this already works and has people saying "the future is here, we just haven't held the press conference" and more importantly emergently developing the wellbeing economy through practical steps.
Just showing the stories of how it's working is so much more agile than trying to get everyone to agree on one theory -- the proof is in the pudding as they say!
Thanks for this comment. Although I sense what you are alluding too, I might still be a bit stuck in the old model of central policy and governance. Having said that, we cannot deny powers such as China and Russia rely heavily on central governance. And I would argue neoliberalism wouldn’t be what it is today without institutional support from the US government, the IMF, world bank and the like. Also, already since I am small I observe the well intended are fragmented, poorly organized and relatively ineffective, compared to the self-centered. I would be very curious hearing from you what you think about my post about a vision for Europe: https://tychohuussen.substack.com/p/europe-needs-vision
Kasper and Erin, This is a great advance, sincerely, but your theory of change is still leaving out the natural systems you propose humanity emulate. I’m pleased to see there is still progress being made in that defection being made, of course.
I’m always very sad the progress has to be made without the innovators asking questions of each other, acting as living in separate worlds, and seemingly limited to upstaging each other. Why not organize a “meeting of the minds” for discussing how runaway growth systems of all kinds may:
1) grow to exhaustion or collaps
2) grow to a peak of short or long lasting harmony instead
3) any of the above, leaving seeds for continuing the evolution of nature?
Nature has given us everything we need to design systems aligned with nature's blueprint for evolutionary fitness.
The KOSMOS Framework provides what Doughnut Economics practitioners have been missing: quantitative measurement of regenerative and distributive performance.
You clearly didn’t read the essay or failed to understand it, it’s says none of the things you claim. You also display a superficial understanding of the terms depicted in the essay. Your comment is a pretty good example of people engaging without haven’t read or understood the terminology you are discussing. Unfortunately it’s a pretty good example of “been soup” theory in practice.
Brilliant diagnosis of the fragmentation problem. I call it the Tower of Babel problem. You're right that we need alignment without collapsing into co-optable narratives.
But your "change minds first, build power second" sequence misses the coordination infrastructure layer.
You don't change minds - you relate to what people already know. These 300+ movements (there are SO many beyond just the four mentioned that are primed to coordinate) aren't confused about their direction. They're stuck in a coordination problem because they lack shared language, stories, and timing mechanisms.
The neoliberals didn't win by "building power" as a separate step. They built coordination infrastructure - think tanks, media relationships, coordinated messaging calendars. The power emerged FROM coordination, not before it. Coordination IS power. (And a recent AI development has the same emergent shape as this you might be fascinated to know, but this is still insider info atm)
We've run experiments this year proving this works in a specific order: coordinated storytelling across movements using bridging language (wellbeing economics, community wealth) creates frequency illusion effects that make alternatives feel inevitable. Viral content hitting 100K+ consistently because we're not "changing minds" - we're showing people solutions they already want exist everywhere simultaneously.
And most importantly, providing actionable pathways that fractally scale in small moves, because this is not only inspiring people to say "this is the kind of movement that changes world history," but giving them permission to take those actions. And that's where real systemic change emerges.
The missing piece you're pointing toward isn't better theory. It's coordination technology - shared rhythms, bridging terminology, and timing mechanisms that let these movements amplify each other without requiring ideological consensus.
Happy to share frameworks if useful. We're building this infrastructure now.
I have run the biggest movement in Denmark and an mobilized and entire industry not to fight regulation but to demand it. The key to this was what we point to in the essay. To learn more see this https://youtu.be/KkipCp1GbFI
I think alignment around a “shared direction” is a lot easier than a “shared theory of change”, and doubt the proponents of neoliberalism ever agreed on a common theory of change (although I see it might appear so in hindsight).
After reading the essay I am not sure what you propose in practical terms. Who should sit down and agree on a theory of change? And would that theory apply to the whole world? One theory of change for Africa, China, USA, Russia, and the EU seems unreasonable to me.
Personally, as a European, I would suggest the EU starts defining a vision for a post-growth EU economy with inputs from all member states and cultural groups. That would, I imagine, prepare the ground for systemic change.
You're exactly right - shared direction without requiring shared theory is the key. Neoliberals coordinated around outcomes (deregulation, privatization, market primacy) while maintaining different philosophical justifications.
Your question 'who should sit down' reveals the old model: assuming coordination requires central authority deciding for everyone. That's the top-down approach you mention, and it creates the exact problems the essay diagnoses - co-option by existing power structures.
Coordination infrastructure works differently. It's not about convening authorities to agree on theory. It's about bridging language that lets movements recognize they're working toward the same outcomes, timing mechanisms for coordinated action (like how #MeToo created cascade effects without central planning), and shared storytelling rhythms that create frequency illusion
This doesn't require one theory for Africa vs EU vs China. It requires movements in each context coordinating locally while using compatible language globally. Worker cooperatives in Kenya and Colorado don't need the same implementation - they need to recognize each other as part of the same transformation.
And we've done experiments, this already works and has people saying "the future is here, we just haven't held the press conference" and more importantly emergently developing the wellbeing economy through practical steps.
Just showing the stories of how it's working is so much more agile than trying to get everyone to agree on one theory -- the proof is in the pudding as they say!
Thanks for this comment. Although I sense what you are alluding too, I might still be a bit stuck in the old model of central policy and governance. Having said that, we cannot deny powers such as China and Russia rely heavily on central governance. And I would argue neoliberalism wouldn’t be what it is today without institutional support from the US government, the IMF, world bank and the like. Also, already since I am small I observe the well intended are fragmented, poorly organized and relatively ineffective, compared to the self-centered. I would be very curious hearing from you what you think about my post about a vision for Europe: https://tychohuussen.substack.com/p/europe-needs-vision
Kasper and Erin, This is a great advance, sincerely, but your theory of change is still leaving out the natural systems you propose humanity emulate. I’m pleased to see there is still progress being made in that defection being made, of course.
I’m always very sad the progress has to be made without the innovators asking questions of each other, acting as living in separate worlds, and seemingly limited to upstaging each other. Why not organize a “meeting of the minds” for discussing how runaway growth systems of all kinds may:
1) grow to exhaustion or collaps
2) grow to a peak of short or long lasting harmony instead
3) any of the above, leaving seeds for continuing the evolution of nature?
Jessie
Synapse9.com
Nature has given us everything we need to design systems aligned with nature's blueprint for evolutionary fitness.
The KOSMOS Framework provides what Doughnut Economics practitioners have been missing: quantitative measurement of regenerative and distributive performance.
https://kosmosframework.substack.com/p/doughnut-economics-for-business-a
You clearly didn’t read the essay or failed to understand it, it’s says none of the things you claim. You also display a superficial understanding of the terms depicted in the essay. Your comment is a pretty good example of people engaging without haven’t read or understood the terminology you are discussing. Unfortunately it’s a pretty good example of “been soup” theory in practice.