Hubbry Logo
The DoughnutThe DoughnutMain
Open search
The Doughnut
Community hub
The Doughnut
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
The Doughnut
The Doughnut
The Doughnut
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Original scale model of the Doughnut, the proposed new headquarters building for GCHQ.

Key Information

The Doughnut is the nickname given (due to its resemblance to a doughnut) to the headquarters of the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ),[1][3] a British cryptography and intelligence agency. It is located on a 71 hectares (176 acres) site in Benhall, in the suburbs of Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, in South West England.[5][6] The Doughnut accommodates 5,500 employees; GCHQ is the largest single employer in Gloucestershire.[5][6][7] Built to modernise and consolidate GCHQ's multiple buildings in Cheltenham, the Doughnut was completed in 2003, with GCHQ staff moving in the same year,[1] and fully moved into the building in 2004.[8] The Doughnut was too small for the number of staff at its completion, and a second building in a secret and undisclosed location in the 'Gloucestershire area' now also accommodates staff from GCHQ. The Doughnut is surrounded by car and bicycle parking in concentric rings,[3] and is well protected by security fencing, guards, and CCTV systems.

The construction of the building was financed by a private finance initiative, and construction costs were greatly increased after difficulties in transferring computer infrastructure to the building. The building is modern in design, and built primarily from steel, aluminium, and stone.[3] GCHQ management aspired for the building to be as well known internationally as the Pentagon.[9]

Background

[edit]

The construction of the Doughnut in 2003 consolidated the operations previously spread across two sites into a single location, replacing more than 50 buildings in the process.[5] The last staff from the nearby GCHQ site at Oakley were transferred to the Doughnut in late 2011.[10]

The design of the Doughnut reflects GCHQ's intended new mode of work after the end of the Cold War, with its design facilitating talking among staff, and between them and the Director of GCHQ and his subordinates.[5] It was estimated that anyone in the building could reach any other worker within five minutes.[5] The director of GCHQ has no office; in 2014 director Iain Lobban described his desk as being located "within the shouting distance of lawyers".[7]

At a cost of £330 million, the construction of the Doughnut was funded by a private finance initiative (PFI) put forward by a collective that included the British facilities management and construction company Carillion (now defunct), the Danish security company Group 4 / Falck (now G4S), and the British telecommunications company BT Group.[5] The creation of the Doughnut was the largest PFI project to date for the British government.[5] The building was designed by the British architect Chris Johnson for the American architectural firm Gensler,[3] and built by Carillion.[11]

In 2004, Edward Leigh, the chairman of the Commons Public Accounts Committee, criticised the increasing cost of GCHQ's move to the Doughnut.[12] Leigh said that "It was astonishing GCHQ did not realise the extent of what would be involved much sooner".[12] Leigh had said in 2003 that GCHQ's original estimate for the cost of the move was "staggeringly inaccurate".[13]

For security reasons, GCHQ moved its own computers and technical infrastructure to the Doughnut, which caused the cost of its move to increase from £41 million to £450 million over two years.[12] The moves of MI5 and the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) to new buildings had also cost more than three times their original estimates due to issues with transferring computers.[14] HM Treasury paid £216 million toward a newly agreed budget of £308 million, having initially refused to finance the original high figure.[12] The final cost of GCHQ's move to their new headquarters was more than seven times the original estimate.[13]

The complexity of the computer network at GCHQ was responsible for the increase in costs. Issues with the network were found while preparing computers for the 'Millennium bug'. Simply shutting down each computer individually before restarting them in the Doughnut would have left GCHQ unable to complete key intelligence work for two years, while moving their electronics according to the original schedule without "unacceptable damage" to intelligence gathering would cost £450 million.[13] In a review of GCHQ's move in 2003, the National Audit Office (NAO) said government ministers might never have approved the consolidation of facilities had the final cost been known.[13]

Design

[edit]
The Doughnut from Leckhampton Hill, 2010

The Doughnut is divided into three separate four-storey structures, identical in design, and connected at the top and bottom.[5][15] With a total floor area of 140,000 square metres (1,500,000 square feet), the building contains two circular blocks, internally divided by a 'street' covered in glass.[5][15] Construction materials were primarily steel, aluminium, and stone,[3] particularly granite and local limestone from the Cotswolds; designers incorporated recycled materials in the steelwork and the construction of desks.[5] The design of the Doughnut was subsequently nominated for an award to "highlight improvements to the built and landscaped environment" given by Cheltenham's Civic Society.[16]

A circular walkway named The Street runs throughout the building.[17] An open-air garden courtyard lies in the middle of the Doughnut; this garden is large enough to contain the Royal Albert Hall.[3] The courtyard has a memorial to GCHQ staff who have been killed on active service; some five staff died in the War in Afghanistan.[7] Below the garden are banks of supercomputers.[5] The Doughnut is 21 metres (70 feet) high and 180 metres (600 feet) in diameter.[3] Individual spaces in the Doughnut include the GCHQ archive holding 16 million historical artefacts,[1] and the 24/7 operations centre[1] where people working in "small 12-hour shifts monitor GCHQ systems and news bulletins."[7] The 'Action On' programme enables the 24/7 staff to act "quickly and freely" to supply information to British Armed Forces to help their operations.[7] The Doughnut's internet operations centre (INOC), is where "the best technical capabilities [are matched] with the most urgent operational requirements" according to Charles Moore who visited the Doughnut in 2014 for The Daily Telegraph.[7]

The structure of the Doughnut is designed to minimise any potential effect of a fire or a terrorist attack on the building; it also includes independent power generators which can supply power to the facilities in an emergency.[5] About 1,850 miles (3,000 kilometres) of fibre optics were installed in the Doughnut by British Telecom, and about 6,000 miles (10,000 kilometres) of electrical wiring were used in the building.[5]

The Doughnut is surrounded by car and bicycle parking in concentric rings, guarded by a two-metre metal fence and half a dozen vehicle checkpoints.[3][6] The Doughnut is served by an underground road.[3]

Facilities available to staff at the Doughnut include a 600-seat restaurant, cafes, shops, a gymnasium, and a prayer or quiet room.[1][5] Exhibits from the history of GCHQ are displayed throughout the building, including the radios used by the Portland spy ring.[17]

History

[edit]
Movable satellite receiver dish in front of the GCHQ Doughnut

The Doughnut was officially opened in 2004 by Queen Elizabeth II, accompanied by the Duke of Edinburgh.[2] In 2008, the then Labour Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Gordon Brown, visited the Doughnut and praised the staff working there in a speech.[18] The Doughnut has been visited three times by the then Charles, Prince of Wales since its opening.[19] Charles was accompanied by Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall in 2011, on his second visit to the Doughnut.[19]

The Doughnut was already too small for the number of GCHQ staff at its completion, as a vast expansion in the number of employees had occurred as a consequence of the September 11 attacks in 2001.[20] The staff numbered almost 6,500 by 2008.[20] The addition of a two-storey office block and a three-storey car park to the Doughnut was proposed in 2008, but eventually suspended in 2011.[21] The new buildings were intended to facilitate the arrival of 800 staff from GCHQ's former site at Oakley.[21] Though it was initially felt that the Doughnut would be adequate for the new staff, 600 contractors working on technical projects for GCHQ were eventually relocated to a secret undisclosed building in the 'Gloucestershire area'.[21] The parking of cars by GCHQ staff on residential roads has caused 'annoyance' among local residents in Benhall.[21] It was believed that the arrival of new staff may have further affected local parking, but GCHQ stated the presence of the new employees would have been offset by redundancies.[21]

On 1 June 2007, the building and its grounds were designated as a protected site for the purposes of Section 128 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. The effect of the act was to make it a specific criminal offence for a person to trespass into the site.[22]

Access to the Doughnut is rarely granted to representatives from the media, but it was visited for the March 2010 BBC Radio 4 documentary GCHQ: Cracking the Code,[17] by Charles Moore for an interview with GCHQ director Iain Lobban for The Daily Telegraph in October 2014,[7] and by historian and writer Ben Macintyre who visited the Doughnut for a series of articles for The Times in October 2015 in anticipation of the draft Investigatory Powers Bill.[23]

Charitable efforts

[edit]
GCHQ illuminated in rainbow spectrum of colours to mark the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia in 2015

Originally an annual event, a Community Day is held at the Doughnut to highlight the charitable and volunteer work by GCHQ staff in the local Cheltenham community.[24] More recent Community Day events are held approximately every 18 months.[25][26]

In October 2014, 1,308 GCHQ staff formed a giant red poppy in the Doughnut's central courtyard to mark the start of the Royal British Legion's (RBL) Poppy Appeal.[27] The poppy was 38 metres (125 feet) in size with a 28 metres (92 feet) long stalk.[27] The staff wore red rain ponchos, with the black centre of the poppy formed by the uniforms of Royal Navy personnel.[27]

In 2015, the Doughnut was illuminated with yellow light to mark GCHQ staff's support for The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association,[28] and by a rainbow spectrum of colours to mark the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia.[29] In early 2018, the Doughnut among others was again lit up in rainbow colours in support of LGBTQ causes.[30]

See also

[edit]

The three other headquarters of British intelligence agencies;

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

The Doughnut

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Doughnut is the informal name for the central headquarters building of the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the United Kingdom's primary signals intelligence agency, situated on a 71-hectare site in Cheltenham, Gloucestershire. Completed in 2003 after construction that made it Europe's largest building project at the time, the facility was designed by the architectural firm Gensler and built by Carillion at a cost of £337 million, with staff relocating from dispersed sites that year and Queen Elizabeth II officially opening it in 2004. The structure's defining feature is its ring-shaped layout—comprising three curved segments enclosing a vast central atrium—spanning approximately one million square feet across four stories, optimized for secure collaboration in intelligence operations. This design not only symbolizes GCHQ's focus on encircling and analyzing global communications threats but also incorporates advanced security measures, including blast-resistant glazing and compartmentalized workspaces to mitigate espionage risks. Housing thousands of personnel engaged in cryptography, cyber defense, and foreign signals interception, the Doughnut has served as the nerve center for GCHQ's mission to safeguard national security amid evolving digital threats, though the agency's broader activities have drawn scrutiny over mass surveillance practices revealed in leaks like those from Edward Snowden in 2013.

Conceptual Framework

Visualization and Structure

The Doughnut model is depicted as a circular diagram consisting of two concentric rings, forming a doughnut-like shape that visually represents the balance required between human needs and Earth's regenerative capacity. The inner ring delineates the social foundation, comprising twelve critical dimensions essential for human well-being, such as , , , and work, and , political voice, , , , networks, and . These dimensions draw from the established in 2015, setting a minimum threshold below which societies risk widespread deprivation. The area within this inner ring, akin to the "hole" of the doughnut, signifies regions of unacceptable human shortfall where basic needs remain unmet. Encircling the social foundation is the ecological ceiling, an outer ring defined by nine that mark the safe operating space for humanity to avoid triggering irreversible environmental damage. These boundaries include , , , land-system change, freshwater use, biochemical flows ( and cycles), atmospheric loading, chemical , and stratospheric , as originally quantified by Rockström et al. in 2009 and updated in subsequent research. Transgression beyond this outer boundary represents ecological overshoot, where resource consumption exceeds planetary limits, potentially leading to . Between these two rings lies the safe and just space for humanity, the viable region of the diagram where it is possible to meet essential social needs without overshooting ecological limits; this space serves as the model's target zone for sustainable economic activity. The structure emphasizes interdependence, with radial lines or segments often illustrating the twelve social dimensions aligned against the nine planetary ones, though the exact graphical alignment can vary in applications to highlight specific metrics or regional data. This visualization, first articulated by economist in 2012, functions as a dynamic rather than a static metric, adaptable for global, national, or local assessments by overlaying empirical indicators onto the rings.

Social Foundation Dimensions

The social foundation in the Doughnut model delineates the minimum thresholds for meeting essential human needs across 12 dimensions, forming the inner boundary to avert widespread deprivation. These dimensions aim to ensure that economic activity supports access to basic requirements for thriving, without assuming endless growth as the sole metric of progress. Derived from social priorities outlined in the adopted in 2015, they emphasize empirical indicators of shortfall, such as hunger rates or literacy levels, rather than abstract ideals. The 12 dimensions are:
  • Food security: Access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food for all individuals.
  • Health: Universal access to healthcare services and conditions promoting physical and mental well-being.
  • Education: Equal opportunity for quality learning and skill development throughout life.
  • Income and work: Adequate earnings from productive employment that provides dignity and stability.
  • Peace and justice: Absence of violence, equitable legal systems, and resolution of conflicts through fair processes.
  • Political voice: Mechanisms for citizens to influence governance and policy decisions inclusively.
  • Social equity: Measures to diminish disparities in resources and opportunities across populations.
  • Gender equality: Elimination of discrimination, ensuring equivalent rights, roles, and responsibilities regardless of sex.
  • Housing: Availability of secure, affordable shelter that meets basic habitability standards.
  • Networks: Robust social ties and community structures supporting mutual aid and resilience.
  • Energy: Reliable supply of modern, affordable energy sources without reliance on harmful fuels.
  • Water: Sufficient quantities of clean water for drinking, sanitation, and hygiene needs.
In practice, these thresholds are assessed using quantifiable metrics, such as the proportion of the population below minimum caloric intake for or lacking formal education beyond primary levels. The model posits that economies falling short in any risk systemic instability, as unmet basics correlate with higher rates of conflict, , and reduced , based on cross-national data patterns. However, critics note that aggregating diverse needs into 12 categories may overlook cultural variations in priorities or the challenges of enforcing universal minima amid resource constraints.

Planetary Boundaries

The planetary boundaries in the Doughnut model constitute the ecological ceiling, delineating the aggregate biophysical limits beyond which human activity risks triggering irreversible environmental degradation and nonlinear Earth system changes. This outer ring adapts the scientific framework originally proposed by Johan Rockström and colleagues in 2009, which identifies nine critical Earth system processes essential for maintaining planetary stability. The boundaries quantify safe operating spaces using control variables and planetary-specific thresholds derived from paleoclimate data, ecological modeling, and observational records, such as limiting atmospheric CO2 concentration for to 350 ppm or pre-industrial rates to below 10 times the . In Doughnut Economics, exceeding these thresholds—assessed globally but with implications for local economies—constrains the for human prosperity, emphasizing that must decouple from biophysical overshoot to avoid cascading risks like amplified feedbacks or collapse. The nine planetary boundaries encompass:
  • Climate change: Stabilizing at 1 W/m² above pre-industrial levels (updated to align with 1.5°C warming thresholds).
  • Biosphere integrity: Limiting loss to an extinction rate under 10 per million species-years and maintaining functional processes.
  • Land-system change: Restricting conversion of forests and ecosystems to no more than 15% of global ice-free land surface.
  • Freshwater change: Avoiding water (surface/) withdrawals that exceed 4,000 km³/year globally, adjusted for regional availability.
  • Biogeochemical flows: Capping at 62 Tg N/year and runoff to rivers at 11 Tg P/year from industrial and agricultural sources.
  • Ocean acidification: Maintaining saturation state of in above 2.75 globally and 80% regionally.
  • Stratospheric ozone depletion: Limiting changes in concentration to under 5% reduction from pre-1980 levels.
  • Atmospheric aerosol loading: Keeping regional particulate concentrations below thresholds that impair air quality and ecosystems, such as 30 µg/m³ for PM2.5 in populated areas.
  • Novel entities: Preventing release of synthetic chemicals, plastics, and other human-made substances that disrupt system functions, with no quantified safe threshold due to emerging risks (added to the framework post-2009).
Assessments indicate transgressions in multiple boundaries: as of 2023, six were exceeded, including , integrity, land-system change, freshwater use, biogeochemical flows, and entities; by 2025 updates, seven showed breaches, underscoring heightened planetary stress from anthropogenic pressures like emissions (exceeding 40 Gt CO₂-equivalent annually) and . While the framework provides empirically grounded metrics—e.g., overload linked to 190% exceedance of safe flows—critics argue thresholds involve scientific , such as aggregation challenges across scales and potential overemphasis on global averages that mask adaptive capacities in resilient systems. In the Doughnut context, these boundaries serve not as rigid prohibitions but as dynamic indicators for policy, urging regenerative economic designs like circular resource loops to remain within the viable space between ecological ceilings and social floors.

Historical Development

Origins in Oxfam Research

, a researcher at GB, first articulated the Doughnut model in her February 2012 discussion paper titled A Safe and Just Space for Humanity: Can We Live Within the Doughnut?. The framework emerged from 's focus on global inequality and environmental limits, synthesizing the concept of —originally outlined by Johan Rockström and colleagues in 2009—with social foundations derived from frameworks like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Amartya Sen's capabilities approach. proposed the "doughnut" as a visual : an inner ring representing the social foundation below which human deprivation persists (encompassing 11 dimensions such as food, water, health, and education), and an outer ring denoting the ecological ceiling beyond which planetary systems risk collapse (drawing on nine boundaries including , , and ). The paper argued that sustainable economic development must occur within the "safe and just space" between these rings, critiquing growth-obsessed models for overshooting ecological limits while failing to eradicate social shortfalls, particularly in low-income countries. Oxfam's involvement stemmed from its mission to address poverty amid resource constraints, with Raworth supported by colleagues including Mark Fried and Richard King in refining the model for policy relevance. This initial formulation emphasized empirical indicators, such as global data showing overshoot in six of nine planetary boundaries and shortfalls in seven of eleven social metrics, to highlight the urgency of recalibrating economic priorities toward distributional justice and regeneration rather than endless expansion. While Oxfam, as a development NGO, inherently prioritizes equity narratives, the model's boundaries were grounded in peer-reviewed science from sources like the Stockholm Resilience Centre, lending it cross-ideological analytical rigor.

Publication of Doughnut Economics

Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist, authored by , was first published in the on 6 April 2017 by Cornerstone, an imprint of . The book presents the doughnut model as a framework for sustainable , advocating shifts away from growth-obsessed paradigms toward regenerative and distributive . In the United States, it appeared under Publishing on 23 March 2017 in hardcover, followed by a edition in 2018. The publication built directly on Raworth's earlier work, including her 2012 Oxfam discussion paper A Safe and Just Space for Humanity, which introduced the doughnut visualization combining with social foundations. Raworth promoted the book through public lectures and media appearances, emphasizing its critique of 20th-century economic models reliant on equilibrium assumptions and infinite growth. Initial print runs and marketing focused on academic and policy audiences, with endorsements from figures in highlighting its potential to integrate ecological limits into mainstream discourse. Upon release, the book achieved commercial success, becoming a Sunday Times bestseller and earning recognition as a Financial Times Book of the Year for its accessible challenge to neoclassical tenets. Translations into over 20 languages followed, extending its reach globally by 2018. However, some economists questioned its empirical grounding, arguing that proposals like agrowth lacked rigorous modeling to demonstrate feasibility over GDP-focused alternatives.

Evolution Through DEAL

The Doughnut Economics Action Lab (DEAL) was established in July 2019 as a to translate the Doughnut framework from to practical action, building on Kate Raworth's 2017 book Doughnut Economics. DEAL's formation addressed the need for tools, methodologies, and collaborations to apply the model across scales, including cities, businesses, and nations, emphasizing regenerative and distributive economic principles within . Early milestones included the release of a methodology in July 2020, enabling adaptation of the global to local contexts, as demonstrated by Amsterdam's adoption of the first city-level in April 2020 to guide post-pandemic recovery strategies focused on social and ecological thresholds. In September 2020, DEAL launched its online Community Platform, which grew to over 3,000 members within three months, fostering global collaboration among changemakers in education, policy, and enterprise to co-create resources and share experiments. These initiatives marked a shift from theoretical exposition to empirical testing, with DEAL prioritizing open-access tools like Doughnut portraits for self-assessment and . Through DEAL, the framework evolved quantitatively in its third iteration, detailed in Raworth's September 2025 report The Evolving Doughnut, which updated social foundation dimensions and with indicators tracking global outcomes from 2000 to and introducing annual refresh cycles. Key refinements included disaggregating data into country income clusters—the poorest 40%, middle 40%, and richest 20%—to highlight distributional inequities, alongside new diagram variants such as the Quantified Doughnut for evidence-based calibration and the Unrolled Doughnut for linear analysis of overshoots and shortfalls. This update, co-designed with visual collaborator Ruurd Priester, incorporated feedback from DEAL's practitioner network, enhancing the model's precision for policy applications while maintaining its core structure of 12 social dimensions and 6 . DEAL's first five-year review (covering 2020–2024) documented over 100 active projects worldwide, including partnerships with local governments like for integration and businesses for metrics, demonstrating causal links between framework adoption and targeted interventions in areas like inequality reduction and . By 2023, DEAL had expanded its core team and translated resources into five languages, amplifying and iterative refinement based on real-world outcomes rather than abstract . These developments underscore DEAL's role in causal realism, grounding the Doughnut in verifiable data and adaptive experimentation to challenge growth-centric paradigms with evidence of viable alternatives.

Theoretical Underpinnings

Influences from Ecological and Social Theories

The Doughnut model's ecological ceiling incorporates the framework, first articulated by and 27 co-authors in a 2009 Nature article, which delineates nine biophysical thresholds—such as , , and nitrogen cycle disruption—derived from empirical analysis of system dynamics to define a safe operating space for humanity. These boundaries, quantified through control variables like atmospheric CO₂ concentration (350 ppm as the proposed limit for ) and genetic diversity loss (below 10% average species loss over 50 years for ), underscore the causal risks of overshoot, including nonlinear tipping points that could undermine global resilience, as evidenced by paleoclimate data and process-based models. Raworth adopts this structure unaltered for the model's outer ring, prioritizing these science-based limits over economic optimization to enforce causal realism in resource use. The framework also echoes ecological economics traditions, particularly Herman Daly's concept from the 1970s onward, which posits that post-industrial economies have transitioned from an "empty world" of abundant nature to a "full world" where human subsystems dominate biophysical capacity, necessitating zero-growth policies to align throughput with regenerative limits. Daly's influence manifests in the Doughnut's rejection of endless expansion, instead advocating distributed throughput within , as Raworth references his biophysically grounded critique of neoclassical growth imperatives in her 2017 book. This integration highlights a causal emphasis on and material flows, countering unsubstantiated assumptions of infinite substitutability between and human-made capital. On the social side, the inner foundation synthesizes theories of human needs from , prominently Amartya Sen's capabilities approach outlined in works like (1999), which shifts focus from income metrics to substantive freedoms enabling valued functionings, such as being nourished or , evaluated through empirical indices like the co-developed by Sen and in 1990. Raworth operationalizes this by specifying 12 dimensions—water, food, health, , and others—calibrated to global shortfall thresholds, such as the WHO's standard of under 5% stunting in children for health or UNESCO's 100% youth literacy for , ensuring policies target deprivations empirically rather than aggregates like GDP.30028-1/fulltext) Sen's framework informs this by privileging context-specific conversions of resources into capabilities, avoiding universalist pitfalls while grounding social floors in observable outcomes over ideological entitlements. These social elements further draw from Manfred Max-Neef's human-scale development matrix, which classifies nine axiological needs—subsistence, protection, affection, understanding, participation, idleness, creation, identity, and freedom—as interrelated and non-hierarchical, satisfied through existential, structural, and axiological means without conflating needs with satisfiers. Though Raworth does not explicitly cite Max-Neef, the Doughnut's multidimensional needs align closely, emphasizing participatory and creative dimensions over materialist hierarchies like Maslow's, and integrating them with empirical indicators from agencies like the ILO for (e.g., voice in decisions affecting one's life). This synthesis critiques resource-based poverty lines for ignoring relational and psychological needs, favoring causal assessments of unmet thresholds that perpetuate vulnerability.

Critique of Neoclassical Economics

Raworth contends that , as taught in standard textbooks, perpetuates a goal of endless GDP growth, treating it as an unquestioned proxy for human progress despite the planet's biophysical limits. This pursuit, she argues, drives humanity toward ecological overshoot, as evidenced by exceedances in like (CO2 concentrations surpassing 410 ppm by 2017) and (species extinction rates 100-1,000 times background levels). Such models often incorporate exogenous technological progress to sustain per capita growth rates of 1-2% annually indefinitely, yet Raworth maintains this overlooks the causal reality of resource finitude and , rendering the framework causally disconnected from Earth's regenerative capacity. The portrayal of individuals as —isolated, rational agents maximizing self-interest—forms another core target, with Raworth asserting it distorts human behavior by sidelining empirical evidence of prosocial traits like reciprocity and fairness, as demonstrated in experiments where participants reject unfair offers at rates averaging 20-50% across cultures. This assumption, rooted in 19th-century , fosters policies that exacerbate inequality, such as tax structures enabling wealth concentration (global top 1% holding 45% of wealth by 2016 per data), rather than recognizing interdependence within social foundations. Neoclassical reliance on equilibrium-based, linear depictions of markets is critiqued for ignoring systemic feedbacks and thresholds, treating the economy as self-regulating apart from society and ecology, unlike the doughnut's nested model of an embedded, distributive system. Raworth highlights how this neglects regenerative design, assuming extractive linear flows (take-make-waste) suffice, despite data showing 90% of corporate profits from non-renewable resources by the 2010s. Distribution is framed not as an afterthought via trickle-down (which empirical studies, including IMF analyses from 2015, link to lower growth), but as a deliberate structural choice requiring pre-distributive mechanisms like universal basic assets. These points culminate in Raworth's call for , where expansion serves needs up to sufficiency but yields to qualitative metrics beyond, challenging the neoclassical dictum that "growth is good" without qualifiers. While mainstream extensions like environmental Kuznets curves posit self-correcting via growth, Raworth views them as post-hoc rationalizations unsubstantiated by aggregate trends, such as rising global CO2 emissions correlating with GDP increases through 2020. This critique, drawn from heterodox traditions, prioritizes first-principles alignment with observed planetary dynamics over stylized abstractions.

Proposed Shifts in Economic Thinking

Raworth proposes seven shifts in economic thinking to reorient economics away from neoclassical assumptions toward a framework compatible with planetary boundaries and social foundations. These shifts, detailed in her 2017 book Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist, critique neoclassical economics for its reliance on perpetual GDP growth, equilibrium models, and isolated market views, which Raworth contends fail to account for real-world ecological limits and human interdependence. The first shift, change the goal, replaces GDP as the primary measure of progress—despite GDP's origin in 1930s wartime —with the Doughnut as a target for balancing human needs against ecological ceilings. Raworth argues GDP conflates costs like cleanup with benefits, obscuring true , as evidenced by global GDP rising 23-fold since 1950 while like were exceeded. The second, see the big picture, reframes the economy not as a self-contained but as embedded within and the , countering neoclassical depictions of markets detached from environmental inputs and social structures. This draws on historical , such as pre-1950s economic diagrams showing circular flows with , which were later simplified to exclude them. Third, nurture human nature abandons the model of rational, selfish maximizers, incorporating behavioral evidence from experiments like the , where participants reject unfair divisions 50-80% of the time, revealing innate reciprocity and fairness absent in neoclassical utility functions. Fourth, get savvy with systems advocates dynamic over static equilibrium models, emphasizing feedback loops, tipping points, and complexity, as in ecological models where small changes can trigger nonlinear outcomes like fishery collapses observed in the North Atlantic cod fishery. The fifth shift, design to distribute, prioritizes equitable from the outset rather than relying on post-hoc trickle-down effects, which empirical shows exacerbate inequality; for instance, the global top 1% captured 27% of growth from 1980-2016 while the bottom 50% got 12%. Sixth, create to regenerate calls for economies that restore natural systems, shifting from linear extractive models—responsible for like the 70% decline in global populations since 1970—to circular designs mimicking ecosystems' regenerative cycles. Finally, be agnostic about growth treats GDP expansion as context-dependent rather than an imperative, recognizing that high-income nations like the achieved satisfaction by the 1970s with further growth yielding on well-being, per studies like the . Raworth posits conditional growth for developing economies but steady or states elsewhere to avoid overshoot.

Applications and Policy Adoption

Local Government Implementations

became the first major city to integrate the Doughnut model into its municipal strategy in April 2020, embedding it within the Amsterdam Circular 2020-2025 action plan to direct initiatives and post-pandemic recovery toward meeting human needs without overshooting ecological ceilings. The strategy employs a customized Amsterdam City Doughnut, which maps local performance across 12 social indicators (e.g., health, education, income) and four (e.g., , ), revealing shortfalls in social metrics like housing inequality alongside ecological pressures from consumption. This adoption has informed policies such as targets, with the city aiming to halve new resource use by 2030 through measures like product-service systems and waste reduction programs. In , the municipal government formally embraced the Doughnut framework in 2021 via a involving civil servants, academics, and public consultants, applying it to guide a "" toward in and initiatives. The approach has shaped policies addressing urban regeneration, elements in , and redistribution of resources, with empirical assessments highlighting progress in reducing overshoot in local ecological footprints while addressing social deficits like income disparity. 's implementation emphasizes participatory governance, integrating citizen input to align city actions with the model's distributive and regenerative principles. Other local governments have pursued targeted adoptions. In , and Victoria began localizing the model around 2020-2021 to evaluate well-being and , incorporating it into for economic resilience and environmental limits. and received funding in 2021 for exploratory projects mapping -specific Doughnuts, focusing on policy experimentation in areas like and . As of early 2026, over 50 cities and regions worldwide, including Amsterdam (Netherlands), Brussels Capital Region (Belgium), Barcelona (Spain), Nanaimo (Canada), and Tomelilla (Sweden), are actively integrating Doughnut Economics into local policies, strategies, and decision-making to balance social foundations and planetary boundaries. The Doughnut Economics Action Lab (DEAL) provides guides, case studies, and tools like Doughnut Portraits to support these implementations, with recent events including the 2025 gathering in Tomelilla and upcoming workshops and Q&A sessions in February-March 2026. These implementations typically involve cross-departmental collaboration but face hurdles in quantifiable metrics and integration with existing fiscal frameworks.

International and Organizational Use

The Doughnut Economics model has influenced discussions within several international organizations, particularly in the context of and , though it has not been formally adopted as a core policy framework by entities like the . The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has referenced the model in explorations of economies that prioritize human dignity, , and environmental limits, as highlighted in a 2025 feature on Kate Raworth's framework. Similarly, the UN cited Raworth's Doughnut Economics in its 2024 report A/HRC/56/61, linking it to participatory processes for economic rights. The Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) incorporates the model into SDG learning modules, presenting it as a tool for aligning economic objectives with . These engagements reflect conceptual influence rather than operational integration, with efforts like a 2023 OHCHR aimed at introducing the Doughnut to programming. In the , the has experimented with the Doughnut framework in policy development, applying it to assess progress beyond GDP metrics toward 2030 goals. Think tanks such as the ZOE Institute for Future-fit Economies have used it to propose a "Compass for the ," reframing economic narratives around social foundations and ecological ceilings. Advocacy groups, including the European Environmental Bureau, have pushed for its incorporation into economic models to enhance wellbeing within planetary limits, as evidenced in 2022 policy calls. Quantitative analyses, such as a 2024 study evaluating 26 countries' proximity to the model's "safe and just space," demonstrate its utility in benchmarking sustainability gaps, though implementation remains advisory. Multilateral financial institutions have engaged with the model through publications and dialogues. The (IMF) featured Raworth in a 2024 Finance & Development point-of-view article and podcast, framing the Doughnut as a guide for thriving between social needs and ecological constraints. The World Bank referenced it in a 2017 development blog, aligning the Doughnut's boundaries with (SDGs) to identify a "sweet spot" for policy. These instances highlight analytical application over institutional adoption. Beyond intergovernmental bodies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and networks have operationalized the model. The Doughnut Economics Action Lab (DEAL) collaborates with international institutions and maintains a directory of adopting organizations, including development NGOs adapting it for global south contexts. , where the concept originated in a 2012 report, continues to reference it in poverty-eradication strategies, while webinars target NGOs for integrating it into programming. Peer-reviewed updates, such as a 2025 Nature article refining 35 indicators for global monitoring, underscore its role in empirical assessments by research-oriented organizations. Overall, organizational use emphasizes strategic influence and toolkits for reframing priorities, with DEAL facilitating practitioner communities across sectors.

Challenges in Practical Downscaling

One primary challenge in downscaling the Doughnut model to local levels is the scarcity of high-resolution, place-specific data required to assess social foundations and planetary boundaries accurately. Global indicators, such as those for climate change or biodiversity loss, do not readily translate to municipal or regional scales, where localized factors like urban heat islands or community-specific deprivation metrics demand custom collection efforts that are often resource-intensive and incomplete. For instance, in Swiss case studies applying the framework, researchers encountered inconsistent data availability for quantifying ecological ceilings, leading to reliance on proxies that risk diluting the model's precision. Measurement difficulties further complicate , as the Doughnut's "safe and just space" relies on a global framing of boundaries that obscures subnational variations in inequality and overshoot. Adapting these requires defining local thresholds, but national aggregates mask shortfalls in social metrics like access or , necessitating new indicator sets that lack standardization across contexts. In high-income localities, where basic social needs may appear met at aggregate levels, reveals hidden ecological pressures from consumption patterns, yet quantifying regenerative capacities—such as local or resilience—remains methodologically contested due to interdependent systems. Institutional and governance hurdles arise from the need to integrate the framework into existing decision-making structures, where political silos and short-term priorities impede holistic adoption. Local institutions face underexplored governance processes for coordinating across departments, with power divisions between regional and subnational actors hindering coherent policy responses. Stakeholder alignment poses additional risks, as diverse priorities can lead to oversimplification of the model's strong sustainability principles, potentially resulting in policies that prioritize feasibility over transformative depth. These challenges underscore the gap between theoretical ambition and practical execution, as evidenced in efforts to embed the Doughnut in Welsh sustainability governance, where responding to complex, nested systems demands unprecedented cross-scale coherence.

Reception and Empirical Assessment

Positive Impacts and Case Studies

The adoption of the Doughnut Economics model in , beginning in 2020, has facilitated the integration of social and ecological boundaries into urban policy, notably through the city's Circular 2020-2025 Strategy, which emphasizes and equitable distribution during post-pandemic recovery. This approach enabled the creation of a "City " portrait, assessing local performance against and social foundations, leading to targeted initiatives in , systems, and waste reduction that reportedly reduced while advancing . In , the model's application through the "Decidim Barcelona" platform and initiatives has supported urban strategies, fostering participatory decision-making on resource use and promoting regenerative policies that align economic activities with environmental limits, as evidenced by ongoing assessments of social and planetary indicators. These efforts have contributed to measurable shifts in local , such as enhanced monitoring of ecological footprints and social welfare metrics, providing a framework for global boundaries to city-level actions. Business applications, as documented in case studies from organizations like and Ekaterra, demonstrate the model's utility in redesigning operations to balance profit with planetary and social thresholds; for instance, Ekaterra's adoption led to reforms that minimized waste and improved equity in tea production, yielding operational efficiencies without compromising growth objectives. Globally, the revised framework with 35 indicators has tracked modest advancements in social foundations—such as reduced undernutrition rates—amid ecological pressures, underscoring its role as a diagnostic tool for sustainable progress despite uneven outcomes. A renewed of the framework, termed Doughnut 3.0 and published in 2025, evaluates global trends using 35 indicators—21 for social foundations and 13 for planetary boundaries—tracking changes from 2000 to 2022. This assessment shifts from static snapshots to dynamic monitoring, revealing modest reductions in alongside accelerating ecological degradation. Social shortfalls, measured as the proportion of the global population below minimum thresholds, declined in from 47% in 2000 to 35% in 2022, affecting approximately 3 billion people in the latter year. Notable progress occurred in dimensions such as internet connectivity (56% reduction in shortfall), access to services, survival rates, safe , and clean cooking fuels (reductions of 24–56%). However, shortfalls worsened in and political voice, with persistent deprivation in income, housing, and jobs underscoring uneven advancement despite global GDP more than doubling over the period. Ecological overshoots, quantified as exceedance beyond , rose in median from 75% in 2000 to 96% in , with indicators ranging from 50% below the stratospheric boundary (indicating safety) to over tenfold exceedance in ( rates) and chemical . showed CO₂ concentrations more than twice the boundary threshold, aligning with independent assessments confirming transgression of six to seven of nine by 2024, including biosphere integrity, land-system change, and freshwater use. Trends indicate worsening across most ecological metrics, driven by resource-intensive growth patterns. Disaggregating by income-based clusters highlights inequities: the poorest 40% of the global population faced a 60% social shortfall with only 1% ecological overshoot in 2017 data, while the richest 20%—comprising 15% of the population—exhibited a 6.6% shortfall but 273% overshoot, accounting for 44% of total global ecological exceedance. These findings indicate humanity operates outside the Doughnut's safe and just space, with social gains insufficient to offset escalating planetary pressures.

Limitations in Measurability

The Doughnut model's ecological ceiling, derived from the nine framework, faces significant challenges in precise quantification due to uncertainties in defining safe operating thresholds for processes like integrity, , and novel entities. For instance, biophysical thresholds such as those for benefit from relatively objective benchmarks like the Paris Agreement's 1.5–2°C warming limit, but others rely on expert judgment and modeling with high variability, complicating global and local assessments. Measurability of the social foundation is further hampered by subjective threshold-setting for its 12 dimensions, including , and , which often depend on researchers' accumulated experience rather than universally agreed standards, unlike more data-driven biophysical limits. Indicators for these areas, such as via the or attainment rates, suffer from inconsistent data availability across scales—from national to local levels—and difficulties in , leading to non-comparable metrics that mix relative ratios with absolute values. Aggregation into the Doughnut's visual framework exacerbates these issues by employing limited or single indicators that fail to capture the multidimensional of social and ecological interactions, potentially overestimating in high-income regions through reliance on GDP-correlated proxies while underrepresenting interdependencies between boundaries. Local efforts encounter additional hurdles, including the absence of standardized methodologies for adapting global indicators to regional contexts and the technical difficulty of collecting comprehensive for all 21 categories, rendering empirical tracking unreliable for implementation. These limitations underscore broader methodological critiques, where simplifications for visual and communicative purposes reduce the model's credibility for rigorous scientific evaluation, as multi-indicator analyses reveal lower estimated progress toward goals compared to Doughnut-based assessments. Despite attempts to monitor global trends, such as through national-level studies since the , persistent data gaps and scale mismatches hinder verifiable claims of operating within the Doughnut's safe space.

Criticisms and Debates

Methodological and Scientific Critiques

Critics have argued that the Doughnut Economics framework lacks rigorous methodological foundation, primarily due to its qualitative and normative approach that conflates descriptive analysis with prescriptive goals without sufficient analytical depth. For instance, the model fails to provide a detailed examination of the underlying mechanisms driving economic systems or the institutional changes required for transitioning to a "regenerative and distributive" economy, relying instead on broad critiques of portrayed as outdated or erroneous. This results in policy recommendations grounded more in ideological beliefs than , such as unexamined assumptions about scaling social experiments while ignoring free-rider problems in management. Furthermore, the framework's visual representation—a circular integrating social and ecological indicators on disparate scales—serves primarily as rather than a functional model, lacking of causal interdependencies among variables and offering no akin to established economic tools. Scientifically, the Doughnut's reliance on the (PB) concept introduces significant uncertainties, as PB thresholds are often expert-derived and contested for their arbitrariness, particularly in areas like where clear tipping points remain undefined. Operationalizing these boundaries globally overlooks regional variations and interactions, rendering the "ecological ceiling" normatively biased toward without adequate stakeholder input or quantitative validation, which undermines the model's applicability for policy. The social foundation fares similarly, with indicators drawn from subjective human constructs like thresholds that lack the fixity of ecological limits, creating inconsistencies in dimensional comparability and empirical testability. Empirical shortcomings further erode the framework's scientific credibility, as it eschews predictive modeling in favor of selective interpretations of data, such as uncited claims about technological displacement or misreadings of emissions decoupling trends. Without engagement with modern econometric advancements or falsifiable hypotheses, the Doughnut resists quantitative evaluation, making it challenging to assess progress toward its "safe and just space" beyond anecdotal case studies. Critics note that while the model highlights GDP's limitations as a sole metric—limitations acknowledged in since at least the mid-20th century—it proposes no superior, measurable alternative that accounts for trade-offs or incentivizes behavioral change through market mechanisms. This vagueness extends to practical implementation, where downscaling to local contexts reveals gaps in addressing spatial-temporal dynamics or administrative feasibility absent . Overall, these critiques highlight the Doughnut's strength as a for raising awareness but its weakness as a scientifically robust , prone to oversimplification of complex systems and insufficient causal realism in explaining transformative pathways. Proponents have attempted refinements, such as updated indicators, yet persistent challenges in measurability and normative embedding persist, particularly given academia's tendency toward frameworks aligning with narratives over rigorous falsification.

Economic and Growth Concerns

Critics of the Doughnut model argue that its de-emphasis on GDP growth as the central economic objective overlooks the empirical link between sustained expansion and poverty alleviation. Between 1990 and 2019, the number of people living in extreme poverty fell dramatically from approximately 2 billion to around 700 million, a reduction driven primarily by rapid economic growth in countries like China and India, where per capita GDP increases enabled investments in education, health, and infrastructure. This causal relationship—where growth generates resources for social welfare—contrasts with the model's agnostic stance on expansion, potentially hindering the funding of its proposed social foundation in developing economies. The framework's call to prioritize distributional and regenerative principles over aggregate output raises concerns about diminished incentives for and . Market-driven growth, incentivized by profit motives and competition, has historically spurred technological advancements that decouple economic activity from , such as improvements in energy efficiency and agricultural yields. By framing growth as optional or context-dependent rather than a default engine of progress, the Doughnut risks fostering stagnation, where reduced investment in R&D and could slow the very advancements needed to meet without sacrificing human needs. Empirical assessments of scenarios highlight associated vulnerabilities, including higher , accumulating public debt, and fiscal pressures on welfare systems absent compensatory mechanisms like fiscal redistribution or labor market reforms. Furthermore, no country has yet achieved the Doughnut's safe and just space, with global trends showing persistent shortfalls in social metrics despite GDP doubling from 2000 to 2022. This gap underscores critiques that the model underestimates growth's role in scaling solutions to both undershoot (e.g., hunger affecting 783 million people in 2022) and overshoot (e.g., biodiversity loss), as wealth accumulation provides the surplus for environmental investments and adaptive technologies. Proponents like Kate Raworth counter that quality growth within boundaries is feasible, but skeptics, including economists from free-market perspectives, contend the absence of explicit growth strategies leaves the framework theoretically appealing yet practically vague on implementation, potentially leading to policy paralysis in growth-reliant sectors like manufacturing and services.

Ideological and Political Objections

Critics from free-market and conservative perspectives argue that the Doughnut model's growth-agnostic stance undermines the empirical success of in reducing global poverty, with dropping from 1.9 billion people in to around 700 million by 2015, primarily through market liberalization and trade in countries like and . They contend that rejecting exponential ignores how such expansion has historically enabled improvements in , and environmental technologies, without which meeting the model's social foundation would remain unattainable. Libertarian economists further object that the framework neglects the central role of rights in averting the and incentivizing sustainable resource use, positing instead an "embedded" economy that presumes cooperative coordination without market prices or ownership incentives. This omission, they argue, overlooks theory's insights into politicians' misaligned incentives, where state-directed interventions—such as those implied for achieving "regenerative" and "distributive" design—have historically led to fiscal deficits, environmental mismanagement, and coercive outcomes rather than voluntary order. Politically, opponents characterize the model as inherently left-leaning, promoting normative prescriptions like state-owned banks and "People's Quantitative Easing" that challenge free-market financial mechanisms and risk expanding central planning under the guise of ecological ceilings. A Canadian city councillor opposing its adoption described it as "a very left-wing philosophy which basically says that business is bad, growth is bad, development’s bad," reflecting concerns that it prioritizes redistribution and limits over proven engines of prosperity. Such critiques highlight the model's heterodox roots, which blend economic analysis with progressive politics, potentially sidelining causal mechanisms like innovation driven by profit motives.

References

  1. https://radmat.com/projects/gchq-cheltenham/
  2. https://www.gchq.gov.uk/section/locations/cheltenham
  3. https://www.worldconstructionnetwork.com/projects/gchq/
  4. https://www.bdcnetwork.com/home/article/55144116/spy-central
  5. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/02/gchq-spy-agency-nsa-snowden
  6. https://www.kateraworth.com/doughnut/
  7. https://doughnuteconomics.org/about-doughnut-economics
  8. https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries.html
  9. https://doughnuteconomics.org/tools/dimensions-of-the-doughnut
  10. https://doughnuteconomics.org/tools/what-is-the-doughnut
  11. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/
  12. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09385-1
  13. https://www.nature.com/articles/461472a
  14. https://doughnuteconomics.org/doughnut
  15. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458
  16. https://www.stockholmresilience.org/news--events/general-news/2025-09-24-seven-of-nine-planetary-boundaries-now-breached.html
  17. https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-012320-080337
  18. https://policy-practice.oxfam.org/resources/a-safe-and-just-space-for-humanity-can-we-live-within-the-doughnut-210490/
  19. https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/dp-a-safe-and-just-space-for-humanity-130212-en_5.pdf
  20. https://www.kateraworth.com/2017/04/05/doughnut-economics-is-out/
  21. https://www.rizzoliusa.com/book/9781603587969/
  22. https://www.thenationalbookreview.com/features/2017/10/5/review-doughnut-economics-a-smart-fresh-take-on-finacial-matters
  23. https://doughnuteconomics.org/about
  24. https://doughnuteconomics.org/DEAL%27s%20Strategic%20Plan%202019%20-%202023.pdf
  25. https://doughnuteconomics.org/
  26. https://doughnuteconomics.org/tools/the-evolving-doughnut
  27. https://doughnuteconomics.org/stories/deal-the-first-five-years
  28. https://www.amazon.com/Herman-Dalys-Economics-Full-World/dp/0367556952
  29. https://greattransition.org/publication/dollars-doughnuts
  30. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/capability-approach/
  31. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371134298_Manfred_Max-Neef%27s_Human_Scale_Development_and_Geoethics
  32. https://embeddingproject.org/resources/the-social-foundation-a-safe-and-just-place-for-humanity/
  33. https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/2022/06/rethinking-endless-growth-with-doughnut-economics
  34. https://bonpote.com/en/the-doughnut-economics-definition-and-critical-analysis/
  35. https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/book-review-doughnut-economics
  36. https://www.chelseagreen.com/product/doughnut-economics-paperback/
  37. https://doughnuteconomics.org/tools/get-animated-introducing-the-seven-ways
  38. https://www.amsterdam.nl/en/policy/sustainability/circular-economy/
  39. https://doughnuteconomics.org/amsterdam-portrait.pdf
  40. https://www.c40knowledgehub.org/s/article/Amsterdam-s-City-Doughnut-as-a-tool-for-meeting-circular-ambitions-following-COVID-19?language=en_US
  41. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800925001508
  42. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14616688.2023.2290009
  43. https://www.tamarackcommunity.ca/library/case-study-alternative-economic-models-are-helping-cities-thrive
  44. https://doughnuteconomics.org/stories/designing-the-doughnut-a-story-of-five-cities
  45. https://doughnuteconomics.org/themes/cities-regions
  46. https://doughnuteconomics.org/stories/deal-cities-regions-gathering-in-tomelilla-2025
  47. https://doughnuteconomics.org/events
  48. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187734352200032X
  49. https://www.ohchr.org/en/stories/2025/07/economies-work-all-kate-raworth-and-doughnut-economics
  50. https://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/56/61
  51. https://www.unsdglearn.org/microlearning/kate-raworth-on-doughnut-economics/
  52. https://doughnuteconomics.org/stories/trying-to-introduce-the-doughnut-to-un-humanrights
  53. https://doughnuteconomics.org/stories/eu-commission-experiments-with-doughnut-economics
  54. https://doughnuteconomics.org/themes/government-policy
  55. https://eeb.org/doughnuteconomicsforall/
  56. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800924000867
  57. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2024/03/Point-of-view-a-new-compass-for-economics-Kate-Raworth
  58. https://www.imf.org/en/News/Podcasts/All-Podcasts/2024/08/29/kate-raworth
  59. https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/developmenttalk/seven-ways-think-21st-century-economist
  60. https://doughnuteconomics.org/about-orgs-and-networks
  61. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qsg0U1GjBpI
  62. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652625007905
  63. https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/items/df3efba4-d0bb-4582-8eed-0f61d5092cc4
  64. https://www.archdaily.com/997291/how-amsterdam-uses-the-doughnut-economics-model-to-create-a-balanced-strategy-for-both-the-people-and-the-environment
  65. https://www.sundialpress.co/2025/07/09/is-the-doughnut-economics-model-an-effective-blueprint-for-achieving-sdg-11s-vision-of-sustainable-cities-and-communities-case-study-of-amsterdam/
  66. https://doughnuteconomics.org/tools/doughnut-design-for-business-case-studies
  67. https://theconversation.com/doughnut-economics-shows-how-global-growth-is-out-of-balance-and-how-we-can-fix-it-266889
  68. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2024EF004638
  69. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X21006749
  70. https://bridgetmck.medium.com/economics-past-earths-limits-63e10c78bd31
  71. https://ejpe.org/journal/article/download/412/289/909
  72. https://mappingignorance.org/2022/12/05/the-fake-sweetness-of-doughnut-economics/
  73. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213305422000285
  74. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/internationaldevelopment/2018/10/24/cutting-edge-issues-in-development-doughnut-economics-and-development/
  75. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/10/05/global-progress-in-reducing-extreme-poverty-grinds-to-a-halt
  76. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/overview
  77. https://fee.org/articles/theres-a-hole-in-the-middle-of-doughnut-economics/
  78. https://iefworld.org/post-growth2025
  79. https://time.com/5930093/amsterdam-doughnut-economics/
  80. https://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/109701443800596288/PRN03Oct2015TwinGoals.pdf
  81. https://asiatimes.com/2025/10/the-many-holes-in-doughnut-economics/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.