IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i10p4567-d1657538.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rethinking Economic Foundations for Sustainable Development: A Comprehensive Assessment of Six Economic Paradigms Against the SDGs

Author

Listed:
  • Emily Ghosh

    (Stockholm Environment Institute–U.S. Center, Somerville, MA 02144, USA)

  • Leonie J. Pearson

    (Centre for Environmental Governance, University of Canberra, Bruce, ACT 2617, Australia
    Stockholm Environment Institute–Asia Center, Bangkok 10330, Thailand)

Abstract

Progress toward achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) has been disappointingly slow, raising fundamental questions about whether our dominant economic framework can deliver sustainable development outcomes. This research systematically evaluates six economic paradigms—Neoclassical Welfare Economics, Green Growth, Degrowth, Agrowth, Steady State Economics, and Doughnut Economics—against all 17 SDGs to determine which might better support sustainability transformations. Using a rigorous mixed-methods approach, we first characterize each paradigm according to key attributes, then assess their alignment with SDG objectives using a four-point scoring system. Our analysis reveals that the dominant Neoclassical Welfare Economics paradigm shows the weakest alignment with the SDGs, while alternative frameworks demonstrate significantly stronger alignment: Degrowth, Steady State Economics, Doughnut Economics, Green Growth, and Agrowth. No single paradigm fully addresses all dimensions of sustainable development, with most showing notable weaknesses in people-centered SDGs. Each paradigm demonstrates distinct complementary strengths: Green Growth in technological innovation, Degrowth in redistribution mechanisms, Steady State Economics in resource boundaries, Agrowth in redefining welfare, and Doughnut Economics in balancing social foundations with ecological ceilings. We conclude that selective integration of complementary elements from multiple paradigms offers the most promising pathway forward and propose four specific recommendations: (1) developing integrated assessment frameworks, (2) establishing experimental policy zones, (3) reforming economics education, and (4) creating context-specific transition pathways. This research provides the first comprehensive evaluation of how alternative economic paradigms align with the full spectrum of SDGs, offering crucial guidance for policymakers seeking more effective approaches to sustainable development.

Suggested Citation

  • Emily Ghosh & Leonie J. Pearson, 2025. "Rethinking Economic Foundations for Sustainable Development: A Comprehensive Assessment of Six Economic Paradigms Against the SDGs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-23, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:10:p:4567-:d:1657538
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/10/4567/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/10/4567/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:10:p:4567-:d:1657538. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.