The summer of 26: a new direction for economics

Something strange is happening in economics.

Not in the markets—you won’t see it on a stock ticker. Not in central banks—you won’t hear it in a rate decision. But in the intellectual foundations of the economy itself, a quiet revolt is underway.

For decades, we’ve been told a simple story:

Manage the money supply, and you manage the economy.
Let markets self-organise, and society will benefit.
Pursue growth, and prosperity will trickle down.

That story is now being challenged—not by fringe activists, but by the UN, leading economists, and global research institutions. And in the summer of 2026, three major initiatives landed almost simultaneously, all pointing in the same direction: the economy needs rewriting.

1. The UN’s “Beyond Growth” Roadmap: Growth is Not the Solution

In June 2026, the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty released a striking document: The Roadmap for Eradicating Poverty Beyond Growth.

Its core provocation?
Economic growth is no longer a reliable path out of poverty.

The report explicitly rejects the long-held assumption that “growth = progress,” arguing that this belief is now “neither realistic nor sustainable.” [ohchr.org ]

Instead, it lays out around 80 policy measures designed to:

reduce inequality,
strengthen public services,
and decouple poverty reduction from GDP growth. [ohchr.org ]

The roadmap calls for a“human rights economy”—one that puts well-being and planetary limits at the center, rather than production and consumption. [srpoverty.org ]

Even more radical: it argues that our current growth-driven model is actively fueling inequality, weakening democracy, and damaging the planet. [ohchr.org ]

This is not tinkering. It is a direct challenge to the idea that markets, left alone, will deliver broad prosperity.

2. The Global Justice Project: Equality First, Not Markets First

Just days earlier, economists associated with the World Inequality Lab launched the Global Justice Report.

If the UN report is a policy roadmap, this is a full-blown alternative economic vision.

Its starting point: We cannot solve climate change, inequality, or instability within the current economic framework.

The report proposes a radical reordering of priorities:

drastic reductions in global inequality,
shorter working hours,
massive redistribution through global wealth taxes,
and a shift towards what it calls“sufficiency”—less consumption, but higher well-being. [globaljust….wid.world]

Perhaps the most explosive claim:

A fair and sustainable world is possible—but only if inequality is reduced dramatically and systematically. [globaljust….wid.world]

The report also dismisses GDP as the primary measure of success, arguing that prosperity must be measured in terms of well-being within planetary limits. [newsline.com ]

This is a frontal assault on the idea that markets, driven by individual self-interest, will naturally converge on the best outcomes.

Instead, it suggests the opposite:
unchecked markets produce outcomes incompatible with both democracy and planetary survival.

3. Mariana Mazzucato’s “Common Good Economy”: Markets Must Be Shaped

At the same time, one of the world’s most influential economists, Mariana Mazzucato, is publishing The Common Good Economy (rolling out globally through 2026).

Her argument is as sharp as it is simple: Markets are not natural systems to be managed—they are tools to be designed.

For decades, governments have treated “the good” (public services, environmental protection) as a correction to markets.
Mazzucato calls this a trap.

Instead, she proposes:

designing markets around collective goals from the outset,
aligning business, finance, and public policy around shared missions,
and ensuring value is created and shared collectively. [marianamazzucato.com ]

She rejects the passive role of government in traditional economics:

The state should not just fix market failures—it should actively shape markets. [hachettebo…kgroup.com ]

Her “common good compass” reframes the economy as a purpose-driven system, not a spontaneous outcome of private incentives.

What’s Really Being Challenged

Taken together, these three initiatives form a pattern.

They all reject the same three pillars of old economic thinking:

1. The “invisible hand” is enough

The idea that markets self-organise into efficient and beneficial outcomes—dating back to Adam Smith—is now under heavy criticism.
Even modern research suggests markets can be fragile, unstable, and prone to cascading crises. [arxiv.org ]

2. Growth fixes everything

The “growth-first” model is being reframed as part of the problem:

it can increase inequality,
degrade ecosystems,
and fail to improve real living conditions for many. [ohchr.org ]

3. Managing money equals managing society

Macroeconomic policy—interest rates, inflation, fiscal deficits—has long been seen as the main lever of control.
But these new frameworks argue that structure matters more than flows:

Who owns what
Who decides what gets produced
And who benefits from it

A New Economic Imagination Is Emerging

What makes this moment remarkable is not just the ideas themselves, but their convergence.

A UN roadmap
A global inequality research coalition
And a mainstream bestselling economist

…are all saying versions of the same thing:

The economy is not a neutral system. It is a political and social construction—and it must be rebuilt.

The Provocation

Here’s the uncomfortable thought:

What if the traditional economic “common sense” we’ve relied on for 40 years was never neutral science—but a set of assumptions that fit a particular era?

And what if that era—of globalisation, cheap resources, and faith in markets—is ending?

Because if these summer 2026 interventions are right, then the real question is no longer:

“How do we grow the economy?”

But:

“What is the economy actually for?”

And that is a far more dangerous question.

Beyond Growth and Degrowth: The Compelling Vision of Capital Maturity

For decades, our economic discourse has been trapped in a false choice between two unsatisfying futures. On one side stands the familiar model of endless economic growth. This path that relentlessly consumes natural resources and risks environmental devastation. On the other is the alternative of degrowth, a concept often perceived as a narrative of reduction, scarcity, and diminished quality of life. This document introduces a third, more inspiring path forward: the pursuit of Real Capital Maturity. This vision reframes our ultimate economic goal not as perpetual expansion, but as the achievement of a stable, high-quality, and regenerative state where the fundamental needs of everyone are met with sufficiency and efficiency.

The Challenge

This is a letting my heart out moment and I can’t promise it is going to be coherent. But I see some very important things that have happened recently as stakes in the new ground of economic thinking and in politics. There is a challenge laid down to find something new, built out of the old

Economists see humans as homo economicus? Still?

I really recommend listening to this Youtube with Richard Murphy, Emeritus Professor of Accounting Practice and John Christensen, co-founder of the Tax Justice Network.

The subject was the idea of homo economicus – the supposed rational economic actor at the heart of mainstream economics – and its critics.

John traces the origins of the concept back to the late nineteenth century, when economics shifted from being a branch of moral philosophy into the mathematically-driven neoclassical framework most of us were taught at university.

One of the key figures was Francis Ysidro Edgeworth, a mathematician and economist at Oxford. Edgeworth drew on Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarian philosophy – the idea that human beings are rational calculators of pleasure and pain – Edgeworth sought to create a perfectly tidy model of human behaviour. We were, he argued, calculating machines engaged in constant cost-benefit analysis, each of us pursuing our own utility.

Modern models of the economy, like – the DSGE models used by the Bank of England and the UK Office for Budget Responsibility – still rest on the fiction of a single rational agent – or homo economicus – who knows everything and always restores balance.

And these models continue to shape policy. They produce neat forecasts that always return to equilibrium, because the assumptions guarantee that outcome. They are sadly blind to the lived reality of power, inequality, exploitation and environmental breakdown.

Investors in peace, one of my projects, something else. We don’t see homo economicus, we see homo pax. Our true nature is peace and as long as we don’t realise and get to enjoy and appreciate that, we will continue to be homo errorum leading to homo insatisfactus (man of error, unsatisfied man).

This is where Investing in peace and political economy overlap: as long as economics and business continue to model their art on misguided views of what it is to be human, they will continue to guide policy in the wrong direction.

If you are working with economic policy we urge you to look closer at yourself: what is it you really want, what is driving you? Can it be that is something you share with the rest of the people on the planet?

Should we tax the rich more?

Much ado is being made (rightfully) on Gary Stephenson’s exhortations to tax the rich – all over the internet and BBC, getting people of all ilks to wade into the debate.