Supervised by: Jonathan Bert McLelland Jr. BA, MA. Bert completed an interdisciplinary Bachelor of Arts in Political Theatre at the University of Alabama (UA). Bert then completed a Master of Arts at UA in Communication Studies, focusing on rhetoric and political discourse. In 2020 (in the course of this degree) he co-authored two academic papers which have since been published. Bert has recently completed a second MA in Public Policy at King’s College London.

As a professional Bert has worked on multiple political campaigns in Britain and America. He was an intern on the 2018 Alabama gubernatorial campaign of Democratic nominee Walt Maddox, and in 2019 he worked in Cardiff as a communications officer with the People’s Vote Campaign. During the 2020 election, Bert worked as a digital organizer and debate strategist for a congressional campaign and then ran social media for the first Democratic state senate campaign to unseat a Republican in 35 years.


Inflation is more relevant now than ever. Recent world events that have contributed to the surge in inflation in Europe and North America have left many baffled, asking questions like: What is inflation? Where did it come from, and how do we stop it? Therefore, the importance of cogent information on the past, present and future consequences of inflation is paramount if economies are to come out the other side of this crisis dynamic and with expanded capacities – rather than deflated. We use data from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to help explain inflation targeting and when different countries adopted the technique. We also use a graph (Tejvan Pettinger) to bring attention to a possible outcome of hyperinflation, as demonstrated by Zimbabwe. We researched problems involving inflation and found different examples of how inflation has been on the rise recently. We collected data from a wide array of journalistic and scholarly sources to help us explain recent problems with inflation. Throughout this study we have managed to look at inflation and its history as well as its main causes and how it affects different economies and people from all over the world. Our research has looked at and proposed multiple solutions to be taken into consideration in order to navigate this world of high inflation.


“Progress looks like balance”, this is the message Kate Raworth proposed when presenting her idea of Doughnut Economics, a “radical” yet necessary idea for not only an economic system, but a new way for governments to redefine their success, regardless of how the numbers look on paper. This idea proposed by Raworth makes sure that the development of our world will meet the necessities of the human race, while keeping itself within the planetary boundaries. 

Raworth’s model is separated into three main areas. The inner ring is a society where humanity is putting little to no pressure on the planet, a utopian idea that would be unrealistic considering the number of people on the planet today and a reminder that the Earth is there for us to use it, but not to over-exploit it for its resources. Then there is the outer ring, the one we are living in today, a society that has depreciated the planet’s resources, neglecting the responsibilities that each person has to the planet and the impact that certain practices have on the environment. The middle ring of the diagram, or as Raworth calls it, the “Safe Space”, is the perfect balance we should strive for. This would be a world where everyone’s needs are met, while keeping the planet’s health in consideration along the way.


The Limits of the Doughnut

GDP has always been a driving force in the world. It gives people a better quality of life with the production of new goods and services. Nations always aim to achieve the highest GDP yearly increase possible; however, in that process, another key factor of our world gets overlooked: the environment. In order to keep our economy thriving and protect the environment, Raworth established an idea called Doughnut Economics. In the Doughnut, there are nine boundaries that surround the ecological ceiling, and twelve that surround the social foundation. To develop sustainably, people cannot surpass or fail the limits of these boundaries. The environmental ceiling covers: climate change, ocean acidification, chemical pollution, nitrogen & phosphorus loading, freshwater withdrawals, land conversion, biodiversity loss, air pollution, and ozone layer depletion. And the social foundation covers: food, health, education, housing, income and work, peace and justice, political voice, social equity, gender equality, networks, energy, and water (Raworth, 2020).


Chatbot example

Climate Change

Our current economy requires factories to operate for a large amount of time, emitting massive amounts of CO2. The level of CO2 emission have already surpassed the planetary boundaries the Earth provided. One example that proves CO2 emission is over the planetary boundary is the melting of polar ice and the rising sea level. The melting of polar ice caps is dangerous to our environment since it is irreversible. Global warming puts thousands of animals in danger and decreases the world’s biodiversity (Global warming 2020). The way to prevent our society from overshooting this boundary is by setting an amount of carbon each factory can emit. If a factory cannot stay inside the limited amount, they have to purchase carbon emissions from other companies (EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) 2019).


Ocean Acidification 

When CO2 is dissolved in the ocean, it creates carbonic acid. This can harm the balance in the ocean and decrease the pH, which causes the amount of carbon ions, an important element to form the skeleton and shell of marine species, to decrease. The acidified ocean is a difficult place for coral reefs to survive in, and also damages the balance of the ocean system. The amount of fish will decrease drastically due to the disruption of the ocean ecosystem. Overfishing and other human activities in the ocean environment is limited on a local scale, however, ocean acidification can spread through the entire marine ecosystem. The way to prevent ocean acidification is similar to the way to prevent climate change since both of them aim to lower the CO2 emissions (Ocean acidification 2020).


Chemical Pollution

In order to produce more goods, human activities emit toxic chemicals into the atmosphere. Some heavy metal compounds can have a huge impact and alter the planetary environment. When the pollutants are highly toxic, it can bring an irreversible effect on the environment and impact the atmospheric process. It can also cause a reduction in animal fertility. In order to abate the seriousness of chemical pollution, the government can prohibit the use of chemicals that are extremely harmful to the environment and force companies to use substitutes (What is chemical pollution: Environmental Pollution Centers 2018).


Nitrogen & Phosphorus Loading

Both nitrogen and phosphorus cycles are important to plant and animal life, however these cycles are disrupted by human activities. The overuse of fertilisers that contain large amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus can be harmful to the environment. The extra amount of these chemicals that plants cannot absorb will flow into the ocean, causing algae blooms and damaging the marine ecosystem (Beusen et al., 2021). Overuse of fertilisers is the main cause of nitrogen and phosphorus loading; therefore, the government can impose tax on using fertilisers and give subsidies to farmers who use organic farming.


Freshwater Withdrawals

Freshwater is a daily necessity for every human being. Many factories that boost the economy also need freshwater to operate. However, the global hydrological system is influenced by human activities. Humans modify water systems for the use of households and factories. Some of the modifications can be irreversible and reduce the freshwater supply. In order to conserve fresh water, the government can raise the water bill and set more national parks where humans cannot modify the water system in order to protect the environment.


Land Conversions

In order to feed all 7.7 billion people, agriculture is one of the biggest industries. A massive amount of land is required to boost the productivity of food. Therefore, humans transform a lot of forests and grasslands into agricultural land. Forests play an important role in controlling the climate. The conversion of forests into agricultural land can lead to an imbalance of global climate change. These land conversions have a huge impact on biodiversity loss and break the balance of the biological world. Establishing national parks also helps to prevent land conversions. The government can target areas where it is critical to conserve the ecosystem.


Biodiversity Loss

Most of the human activities in growing the economy cause some damage to biodiversity. The environmental harm has been especially intense in the last 50 years. The main cause of biodiversity loss is the demand for food and water, which humans need to alter the ecosystem to acquire. The issue has become more severe as the demand for food and water has shown no sign of decreasing as time goes on. Laws to prevent over-alternation of ecosystems can help to conserve biodiversity. 


Air Pollution

Aerosol plays an important role in affecting the Earth’s climate system. Aerosol interacts with water vapor to affect the hydrological cycle. It causes the formation of clouds and atmospheric cycles like the monsoon. Aerosol can also change the amount of solar radiation, which leads to conversion in the global climate. Human activities that cause air pollution can affect aerosols by releasing dust and smoke into the air. This will lead to a change in monsoon season and climate, which demonstrates that we have already trespassed the planetary boundary. Regulations should be imposed to decrease the amount of dust and smoke emitted.


Ozone Layer Depletion

The ozone layer in the stratosphere is important for both humans and animals because of its role in offering protection from ultraviolet radiation. Increases in the amount of UV can cause skin cancer rates to rise and also cause damage to the biological system. The hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctica region has proved that humans release an excessive amount of chemical substances that damage the ozone layer that the planetary boundary can afford. Chemical substances that harm the ozone layer need to be restricted to protect living organisms on the Earth.


Social Foundation

While society stays outside the outer boundary that is harmful to the Earth, we still need to satisfy the population’s necessities which form the inner bound. The social foundation includes necessary aspects of life for personal and global growth within the lower classes. It requires: food, health, education, housing, income and work, peace and justice, political voice, social equity, gender equality, networks, energy, and water, for people of all social backgrounds around the globe.


But How Can It Be Applied?

Distributive Economy:

Now that we have established what the Doughnut is and what it aims to achieve, the next question is: How exactly can these goals be reached? That question does not have a simple answer, rather several suggestions of different scales that together compose a cogent argument for the attainability of the utopia suggested by Raworth. In her book, Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think like a 21st Century Economist, Raworth separates the measures needed in order to achieve the doughnut in two categories: Economic Distribution, to decrease the social divide that causes millions of people to live in poverty under subpar conditions that do not reach the level of the doughnut; and Regenerative Economy, to improve global societies’ use of natural resources in a way that we may enjoy prosperity without overusing the Earth and surpassing the ecological limits of the doughnut. We will explain both the approaches, followed by an analysis of the viability of implementing these measures.

When trying to understand the economic aspect of the doughnut, the first question one would ask is: Which economic system does Doughnut Economics fit into? It advocates for equality to all and heavy taxation on wealthy corporations, thus it must be some sort of socialism, right? Actually no, a free market is the very foundation of the doughnut, it is built to function under that system, but it is far from capitalism either. So, what is it? The doughnut might be considered the perfect bridge between socialism and capitalism. It speaks to the idea of ‘humane capitalism’. The term sounds oxymoronic, but does it have to be? According to Doughnut Economics, the answer is no. The key word is ‘free’ market; a market that allows equal opportunity for all participants, which is far from the current situation. The gap in wages of the wealthiest 20% is so far removed from that of the other 80% that the system becomes inherently rigged. Doughnut Economics attempts to bridge that gap by giving the lowermost 80% access to proper education, healthcare, and basic living conditions to give them a fair chance (Raworth, 2014). That way, what we are left with is a balanced market where all citizens get to maintain a respectable participating role in society. That is the seductive utopian proposal of Doughnut Economics, but now the question is: How exactly can we achieve that?

Raworth frames her book by giving several independent actions that can be implemented by a community, in order to improve their social inequality in a way that is economically beneficial to their society. The implication is that in order to be inside the doughnut, one must follow all the mentioned measures, but if that is unviable, they can be implemented separately. 

First and foremost, it must be acknowledged that the distributive aspect of Doughnut Economics has the primary goal of lowering social and financial inequality and, thus, raising the quality of life of millions of impoverished families that do not reside in the doughnut. Raworth stresses the gravity of the problem if no action is taken. Disparately from the proven false notion suggested by the Kuznets Curve, which supposed that inequality would inevitably solve itself through the wealthiests’ charity, in 2014, Thomas Piketty discovered that, our world was headed into radical amounts of inequality due to the inherent nature of capitalism to accumulate money. Piketty suggested that while the GDP was growing, more money came into the hands of the wealthy, while less remained for the working class, a vicious cycle that would only widen the disparaging gap between the higher and lower class. Taking into account the dire situation of the world’s economic inequality, Raworth suggests the only way to approach the doughnut is through economic reforms that encourage diversity and distribution. 

Further into the book, Raworth builds on the initial idea that private banks are the ones who ‘create’ the money and manage a great majority of debts. Essentially private enterprises interested in their own profits, they have a full monopoly on both credit and capital, allowing them enormous power over the fluctuation of currency. Therefore, Raworth suggests taking back the power to control capital to state-owned banks, who would then determine the amounts of credit allowed to each area. These banks could prove incredibly useful, in a way that they could even focus funds on long term loans to renewable energy incentives, or net zero carbon affordable transportation. Furthermore, she talks about how secondary currencies can help low-income communities on a local level. For example, exchangeable currency that is contained to a single city does not fluctuate with the market, so if a country’s currency decreases significantly, and they are put in a position where no one has money for even basic needs such as food, an external currency could help keep their community going while the crisis is managed, by exchanging goods in a way which ensures they will not starve. It’s a fall back insurance that has been helping several communities around the world. Raworth then brings up the importance of Blockchain in the climate fight; it has become an increasingly useful decentralized database for open exchanges that will significantly help prevent corruption in the valuable funds for climate change initiatives. Blockchain is also used in transactions of Bitcoin and several other cryptocurrencies such as Ethereum, which has some interesting inbuilt functions for climate change. For example, in Ethereum, people can sell their surplus energy made with their solar panels back to their microgrid, and others can purchase it. The peer-to-peer decentralized local market is one of the aims of Doughnut Economics that is made much simpler by open currencies.

While all these measures are significant, perhaps one of the biggest reforms needed in order to achieve the doughnut is corporate restructuring. Stagnant wages are no new discovery; for the past 30 years, workers have seen barely any increase in their salary while executives’ wages skyrocketed. The GDP growth seen in first world countries is entirely focused on the already wealthy members of society, while the rest remains stale with growing inflation, making their lives near impossible. For example, in the US, from 2002 to 2012 the economy’s productivity increased by 30%, while wages for the bottom 70% of workers remained stagnant or in decline (Mishel & Shierholz, 2013). Even Germany, whose trade unions are known for fair bargaining power, saw workers salaries decrease from 61% of the GDP to 55% from 2001 to 2007 (Miller, 2015). Overall, across all high-income countries, while workers’ productivity grew by 3% from 2009 to 2013, their salaries only increased by 0.4% (ILO, 2014). This data represents a great disparity between the workers and the company profits, and that is a gap Doughnut Economics states we must mend in order to achieve the doughnut. What Raworth proposes is to adopt the model of distributive employee-owned companies. Currently, companies’ power lies solely with the shareholders, and their only goal is to increase profits. The working class people that work there everyday are seen as disposable means to profit, while the investors that likely never stepped foot on the company grounds are the only ones that benefit from the workers’ labor. This model will never work and always encourages the accumulation of money at the top alongside the dehumanization of the company and its employees. So, instead, Raworth proposes companies where the workers own the shares of the company and all have some sort of managerial say. This way the workers get dividends for the achieved profits and the money made is distributed rather than accumulated (Kelly, 2011). Moreover, what better incentive can a worker have to work hard than knowing that any profit would channel back to them rather than some already wealthy corporate executive? It is using capitalism to the worker’s benefit. Capitalism that actually works, and bridges the gap between the worker and the means of production instead of widening it. Furthermore, any external investment needed for the company could be made through the way of bonds with fixed return rates, in a way that people can invest in the company without owning shares in it. 

Later Raworth explains the importance of digital expansion, its benefits or independent learning and production, but also its shortcomings and possible replacement of jobs. Raworth briefly suggests the implementation of a sort of share owned by every person on robot technology, as a way of reparations for all the jobs they will inevitably take. At the same time, disencouraging the complete privatization of an enormous monopolistic industry that is bound to control much of the labor force of the future. She also touches on the reduction of patenting technology, substituting it with a free ideas market, where people are allowed to reproduce someone’s product for cheaper prices to allow a wider population access to it. 

Lastly, Raworth stresses the need for high-income nations to return to their funding of Overseas Development Assistance (ODA), which is the primary institution for money redistributing. All other economic measures presented are imperative, however none of them matter if there are still millions in such a state of poverty that they are unable to partake and contribute to any of them. Thus, drastic actions must be taken to remove them from this state of inability. That’s where the ODA comes into play. Developed nations must give their promised amounts to aid these overseas countries (OECD, 2014). One excuse for failing to donate their pledged 0.7% of yearly GDP to ODA is the institution was victim to corruption and money deviation, however, with open transaction sources such as Blockchain, corruption can be significantly reduced if not made altogether extinct. Moreover, Raworth promotes an idea that instead of funneling the money through governments, the donations could be distributed directly to the people through mobile banks, to act as a sort of monthly income they could rely on. Contrary to what some claim, a monthly income would not make them ‘lazy’. In fact, studies show that people tend to take risks and opportunities when they have insurance money to fall back on (Benerjee, 2015). However, not only must people be provided with money, but also proper education and healthcare. While these are all extremely expensive measures, she argues they can be funded by a reform in taxation. Governments would need to properly enforce taxes on major enterprises, removing all the loopholes and ‘tax havens’ they currently operate under, and increase the tax on personal ownership. There are over 2,000 billionaires in the world; an annual tax of 1.5% of their net worth would raise $74 billion each year; that alone is enough to fill the funding gap to provide every child with school and proper healthcare in all low income countries (Seery & Caustic Arendar, 2014). Topped by a major increase in taxing on companies exploiting the Earth’s limited natural resources such as oil, fossil fuels and carbon on par with the amount of damage they are causing to the atmosphere, and we will have amassed more than enough funds to lift the entire world population from poverty and hunger. That is how you reach the doughnut.

Now, realistically speaking, what is the feasibility of adopting these measures? The global political climate is stagnant by nature, people in power are wary of change, especially change that blemishes their wealthy lives. However, we have seen an impressive amount of progress in the past few years, and a global crisis such as climate change might just be the right incentive to precipitate the big social change seen in the doughnut. The good thing about Raworth’s Doughnut Economics is that not all measures need to be implemented by everyone in order for the system to work. Most measures can work locally or at a larger scale; of course, if major change is to be achieved, most of the world’s high-income countries need to adopt the major distributive policies, however incentives such as the secondary exchangeable currency can be applied to small communities to help them through economic crisis without the need for outside intervention. On the other hand, how likely is it that all inventors will deliberately not patent their inventions so that products will be shared by everyone? Not very, but that is not to say that none of the measures can be implemented. For instance, employee-owned companies are the most holistically beneficial alternative for companies worldwide, and while it might be a challenge to implement the change, it is already being done in several places, and I believe people will see its inherent benefits in the long run. So, really how viable are these measures? Most of them are viable, at least to some extent, but it will be an immense challenge to convince others of their importance and all measures will require immense work to implement. Alas, it is the best option for our world, so it is our duty to at least try.


Regenerative Economy:

In an interview that Raworth did with BBC Reel, it is very transparent that her system has heavy criticisms towards capitalism. She addressed that she believes that the doughnut system does not fall under the umbrella of Capitalism, Socialism, or Communism, but calls for a new system of government, one that is not so old fashioned and that can be tailored to the needs and concerns of a 21st century society sitting on the edge of environmental collapse. A society that has an old-fashioned way of looking at modern issues, including the climate crisis, and how they judge themselves and their results. Since the 1930’s, GDP has been used as a way of measuring a country’s economy and how successful it has been. However, this is not a measurement of the country’s success as a whole and it should not be considered a welfare-indicator. Most governments have decided that in order for their country to become more successful, the catalyst for that success is growth.

As for how successful the system could be, Amsterdam took the idea of the Doughnut Economy and created its own model. The city drew up a “circular strategy” combining the doughnut’s goals with the principles of a circular economy, which reduces, reuses and recycles materials across consumer goods, building materials, production and food. Policies aim to protect the environment and natural resources, reduce social exclusion, and guarantee good living standards for all. The circular economy aims to maximize resource utilization yields in the economy and, as a result, reduce waste production. The main goal is to “close the full loop” (cradle to grave) of the production cycle and maximize material recycling and reuse. The idea encourages new product design to make reusing and recycling easier, as well as new product-service models that alter how we use products and who owns them. Although the circular economy is not a new idea, it has recently received a lot of attention as the urgency of climate change and resource scarcity have increased. One illustration of how we affect the environment is the fact that the weight of all the living species on Earth has been surpassed by human-made items. New economic gains are also promised by the circular economy. It is demonstrated how much value is wasted in the linear economy by redefining “trash” as a resource. According to the NBS, only 8.6% of the resources used in the global economy today are recycled and the remaining items follow the linear economy’s path and are frequently replaced with new ones (Kim, 2022).

Once we get to the point that we are in the safe space of the doughnut system, the hard part is staying inside that zone so that we do not go back to the point where we are doing damage to the planet. However, circular economy is not a simple or automatic fix to the sustainability challenges. It is sometimes labeled as unrealistic because it is complex, relying on consistent material availability, strong communication, and communication between unlikely partners. The complexity of the circular economy increases in correlation to the scale, meaning that although a small city like Amsterdam could put it into practice, nationalizing or internationalizing the system is coated in complex layers that require cooperation not only between companies but between governments. Major changes are brought about by a circular economy for both business and other facets of society. The concepts of minimising purchases, reusing things, and recycling in the absence of those options must be completely embraced by consumers. Additionally, there needs to be a cultural shift in how resource management systems are created, as well as how alliances and networks are formed. The system that we live in today is based on taking, using, and disposing of an item or a material in a way that leads to tremendous amounts of waste. The way that the consumer cycle would have to work in a sustainable economy would have to focus heavily on taking products that are not able to be recycled and disassembling them for the pieces that could be used for the manufacturing of other products. There is an easier solution to the problem of reusing and recycling the products that we are using today and it is through investing heavily into biodegradable substitutes that could contribute to the decrease in the tremendous amount of waste that is around the world in landfills.


What Is Needed For A Transition To This System?

Our modern economy is focused on solely one thing: growth. Increasing demand, increasing supply, and increasing GDP. This is clearly a harmful way to think when asking ourselves what the best economic model is. It does not take people’s wellbeing into account, it does not take the environment into account and it disregards the inequalities between people. Yet, we still find politicians focusing an extensive amount on this. There has to be a radical shift in these paradigms, growth for the sake of growth and ever increasing GDPs will not help better the quality of life for people living in these places. Leaders of countries have to realize that right now, when facing a mass extinction, there are more important things than ever-increasing GDPs. The measure of GDP is a flawed instrument of measure to see and evaluate a country’s success. It does not take housing, life satisfaction or safety into account. An alternative way to see if a country is doing well is to measure its economic wellbeing through the OECD better life index (OECD, 2020). We must promote sustainability as much as possible in order to achieve this goal and we must have instruments that take it into account when talking about a country’s wellbeing. 

During the COVID pandemic, it has been demonstrated that making radical changes, such as policies, is possible in a short time frame (The Government’s Response to COVID-19: Human Rights Implications Seventh Report of Session 2019-21 Report, Together with Formal Minutes Relating to the Report, n.d.). In fact, in the space of a few months, policies were installed and the population had adapted to this new way of living without being able to commute as much. If a shift like this is possible when facing a pandemic, why would it not be possible when facing the sixth mass extinction this Earth has seen? The governments of most western countries, countries most targeted by Doughnut Economics, have proven this.

This shift in beliefs and paradigms has to resonate with the leaders of the countries, such as presidents or prime ministers, but also has to also not be a diametrical shift in the views of the population of said country. In fact, even if the presidents and prime ministers discovered a way to tackle climate change and to implement laws for a better future, this future will not become a reality if all do not participate in trying to help make it happen.

People must realize that the linear economy we are living in right now is not promoting our wellbeing. In fact, countries with the highest GDPs are also the countries with the highest rates of anxiety (Depression and Other Common Mental Disorders Global Health Estimates, 2017). Instead of having an economic cycle that focuses on economic growth, we should have an economic cycle that focuses on the environment and on our wellbeing. Today, our material life cycle, extraction, production, distribution, consumption and disposal is not enough (Rutherford & Williams, 2015). We must focus on reducing, reusing and recycling products. 

This change towards a Doughnut Economy should first be implemented in most Western countries. They have the capacity to do so as they have enough wealth to implement this and are primary pollutants.

For this I will take the model of Amsterdam, a very green city in the Netherlands which prides itself on its sustainability. People largely commute on bikes instead of cars, the city aims to stop using natural gas before 2040, and it aims to convert to a full Doughnut Economy by 2050. The city has made steps towards this by for example reusing old computers during the pandemic instead of buying new ones. The city has also inspired many others, such as Portland in the U.S. to host seminars through the Doughnut Coalition for people with different jobs and different economic backgrounds, to see what the best way is to move to a more environmentally sustainable future (Amsterdam City Doughnut | DEAL, n.d.). Additionally, a new net zero neighbourhood is being built on the outskirts of the city of Amsterdam. This shows another way to provide social housing, improving the environment’s health, and living inside the Doughnut (Nugent, 2021). This Doughnut Economy has been in the works for a few years and will, as said previously, be fully implemented by 2050 (Nugent, 2021). Is this enough?



If we continue as we are, climate change will be irreversible by 2030. This is why we must implement rapid and real changes. By creating a Doughnut Economy, we would help to solve climate change, but this would not be done in time. Amsterdam, a city which has already been tackling this issue over the past few years, set itself the goal of achieving this by 2050. It is impossible for all countries to have this diametrically different system in the span of eight years (Only 11 Years Left to Prevent Irreversible Damage from Climate Change, Speakers Warn during General Assembly High-Level Meeting | UN Press, n.d.). Creating a Doughnut Economy takes time, which we do not have. Of course we can implement parts of it, such as the state funding the reuse of computers instead of always buying new ones, or the investment in long term fashion that will not be obsolete after its small life cycle. Although for now we can add these small elements, we must first operate within our economical system and help reduce emissions drastically before creating a Doughnut Economy. Once we have attained a certain level of sustainability, we can allow ourselves time to change our system carefully, and implement this system slowly and well. A Doughnut Economy would be a perfect model for sustainability and welfare in the long term. 



Amsterdam City Doughnut | DEAL. (n.d.).

Banerjee, A. V., Hanna, R., Kreindler, G., & Olken, B. A. (2015, December 14). Debunking the Stereotype of the Lazy Welfare Recipient: Evidence from Cash Transfer Programs Worldwide.

Beusen, A. H. W., Doelman, J. C., Van Beek, L. P. H., Van Puijenbroek, P. J. T. M., Mogollón, J. M., Van Grinsven, H. J. M., Stehfest, E., Van Vuuren, D. P., & Bouwman, A. F. (2022). Exploring river nitrogen and phosphorus loading and export to global coastal waters in the Shared Socio-economic pathways. Global Environmental Change, 72, 102426.

Depression and Other Common Mental Disorders Global Health Estimates. (2017).

European Commission. (2021). EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS).

Financing for sustainable development – OECD. (n.d.). Retrieved August 21, 2022, from

German Wage Repression | Dollars & Sense. (n.d.). Retrieved August 21, 2022, from

Hurun Global Rich List, 2015,

Iberdrola. (n.d.). Biodiversity loss, a risk for the environment and for humanity. Iberdrola.

International Labor Organization (2014) Global Wage Report. Geneva: ILO.

Mackenzie, J., & Turrentine, J. (2021, June 22). Air Pollution: Everything You Need to Know. NRDC; NRDC.

Mishel, L. and Shierholz, H. (2013) A Decade of Flat Wages. EPI Briefing Paper no. 365, Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

National Geographic Society. (2022, May 20). Global Warming | National Geographic Society.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2020, April 1). Ocean Acidification.; NOAA.

Nugent, C. (2021, January 22). Amsterdam Is Embracing a New Economic Theory to Help Save the Environment. Could It Replace Capitalism? Time.

OECD. (2020). OECD Better Life Index.

OECD iLibrary | Water withdrawals. (2019).

Only 11 Years Left to Prevent Irreversible Damage from Climate Change, Speakers Warn during General Assembly High-Level Meeting | UN Press. (n.d.).

Ozone Layer Depletion – Cause, Effects, and Solutions. (2019). BYJUS.

Raworth, K. (2018). DOUGHNUT ECONOMICS : seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist. Chelsea Green Publishing.

Rutherford, J., & Williams, G. (2015). Environmental systems and societies. Oxford University Press.

samluowei. (2022, February 10). Crops, Houses, or Panels? The Land-Use Conversions of Taiwan Farmland. Taiwan Insight.

Seery, E., & Ana Caistor Arendar. (2014). Even it up : time to end extreme inequality. Oxfam Gb, October.

The Government’s response to COVID-19: human rights implications Seventh Report of Session 2019-21 Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report. (n.d.).

What Is Chemical Pollution | Environmental Pollution Centers. (2018).