Imagine life on Earth, if the original rules were set to degrade the conditions for survival. As ludicrous as that sounds, it’s possible we’ve done so with the rules of a global market economy—a titanic structure susceptible to turbulence. Or is the global economic system causing turbulence?
The World Economic Forum (WEF) recently interviewed 61 chief economists around the globe, who rated the stability of nine pillars of the global economy—prerequisites to the normal operation of the system.[i] Yes, they’re all shaking.
The Physical Insight
When imbalance grows between a system and its surroundings (i.e., its context) the result is turbulence, adding stressors to various parts of the system. Airplanes experience turbulence when they encounter a sudden imbalance in the normal (smooth) flow of air, such as when flying over the Rocky Mountains of Colorado. The imbalance causes violent shaking, a stressor to not only the plane, but its passengers. Design a plane poorly (e.g., inflexible wings), and the turbulence can intensify, increasing the chance of a cracked wing, stress fractures, and so on.
A seagull, encountering the same aerial imbalances, quickly adjusts its wing in three dimensions, twists its body, and tweaks its tail feathers—to slip right through the shifting airmasses, minimizing stress on the body. Birds see turbulence not as a threat, but as a lever; to increase speed, to gain lift, or to bank faster. Designed well, does a bird experience turbulence at all? Or is turbulence simply a tool?
Airplane designers have been studying birds since the time of Wilbur Wright.[ii] Today, the wings of some jetliners can flex up to 25 feet, to absorb and dissipate energy, causing less stress on the plane and its passengers. For more about birds and airplane design, see the biomimicry note.[iii]
Even for seemingly prosperous nations like the U.S., indicators of turbulence—and resulting degradation—include a steep drop in productivity growth,[iv] volatile unemployment rates, social unrest, extensive topsoil loss, and more.[v] Examining the entire economic footprint of the U.S. (the globe), signs of imbalance include toxic air and water pollution in producer nations, chronic poverty, sever wealth imbalances, and others in Table 1.
Table 1. Indicators of economic imbalance (i.e., turbulence, volatility, disturbance).
Click on the image to enlarge.
Most of the indicators in Table 1 are encapsulated in the WEF’s nine pillars of a stable global market economy:
- Labor markets and human capital;
- Natural resources, energy, and environment;
- Financial markets and monetary policy;
- Trade and global supply chains;
- Innovation, technology, and data;
- Public finances and fiscal policy;
- Private investment and capital allocation;
- Private consumption and demand; and
- Faith in global economic institutions (e.g., The World Bank, United Nations, International Monetary Fund, etc.)
As with airplanes, turbulence is simply a form of feedback to the designer, who in cyclical fashion redesigns the system to alleviate the stressor. Over time, a better plane is flying. Through a series of design modifications, an economic structure can either alleviate turbulence, or stimulate it. In the current state, the nine pillars are not only shaking, but most chief economists believe the imbalances are expected to continue—or even intensify.
A Design Flaw in Past Sustainability Paradigms
Sustainability policies and programs began sweeping across the globe in the 1980s, during the rise of global market capitalism as we know it. The United Nations published Our Common Future, setting sustainability targets for participating nations: increasing food security, protecting biodiversity, sustainable energy systems, eliminating poverty, reducing pollution, etc.[vi] The U.N. defined sustainability as “Meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
To meet sustainability goals by the year 2000, the commission concluded that “the international economy must speed up world growth while respecting the environmental constraints.” They prescribed to a classic economic fallacy: that increasing trade of commodities across thousands of different economic contexts can somehow be balanced, and that businesses and industries profiting on those commodities (e.g., food, timber, ore, marine resources, etc.) will find it in their best interest to allocate finances, food, and other basic resources equitably to all populations in developing countries, without degrading the resource base those commodities are derived from.
Ignoring this Sisyphean challenge, industry developed a mantra of balancing social, environmental, and economic goals in the process of pursuing profitable business. This is often referred to as the three pillars of sustainability, or the triple bottom line, pioneered by the British entrepreneur and sustainability advocate, John Elkington.
The “future generations” envisioned in 1987 are here, questioning—rightfully—if the sustainability dial has moved at all. In response, the U.N. published the Sustainable Development Agenda 2030,[vii] laying out 17 goals to meet by 2030:
- End poverty & hunger;
- Provide affordable/sustainable energy;
- Improve employment opportunities;
- Create peaceful & inclusive societies;
- Increase ecosystem protection and restoration, and others.
A critical flaw remains in the U.N. sustainability approach and the triple bottom line. Rather than targeting our economy’s structure, policies and programs focus on our economy’s context (i.e., dozens of social, environmental, and industrial forces on the surface). Applying this approach to airplanes, we would address turbulence by trying to create a smoother airmass over the Rocky Mountains (the plane’s context); without flattening the Rockies, and without altering the plane’s structure. Yes, that is ridiculous.
There was no goal to increase economic diversity, and the abundant social, environmental, and economic benefits of diversity. The goal of energy neutrality,[viii] and its economic, social, and environmental benefits, was also avoided. The 2030 agenda made no mention of a balanced (sustainable) trade pyramid, and the social, environmental, and economic benefits it sustains. Instead, the 2030 agenda promoted more international trade as “…an engine for inclusive economic growth and poverty reduction, and contributes to the promotion of sustainable development.” This is akin to a doctor prescribing more bacon cheeseburgers to patients with heart disease.
The global trade-sustainability fallacy the U.N. continues to promote is likely one of the primary reasons for declining faith in global institutions. Somewhere between 1987 and 2015, global trade began to exceed the 50% mark (i.e., more than half of goods and services produced globally are now traded across national borders), the nine pillars of sustainability began shaking harder, and the resulting stressors became ever-more noticeable. How many failures of the “more global trade is better” philosophy can our communities take?
Since the 1980s WA consensus,[ix] there are billions of more eyes on Earth, questioning the premise that global market capitalism is our savior. And the wool being pulled over them grows thinner by the quarter.
Redefining Sustainability (To Drive Structural Change)
The original goal of the triple bottom line, it so happens, was “system change.”[x] Elkington understood that without structural change to Earth’s economic system, sustainability actions would amount to little more than a globe covered with band-aids (i.e., duct tape on a cracked wing). Structural change is the central theme of Ecosystems as Models for Restoring our Economies, which draws from systems science, economics, ecology, and case studies around the globe to examine the common structure of economies and ecosystems. More important, it outlines processes, policies, industrial structures, and business systems for restoring our economies to a sustainable state.
Simply, sustainability is the ability of something (e.g., global-scale agriculture, friction on a wing) to be maintained at a certain rate or level, without degrading the system or structure. Applied to our economies, sustainability is the ability of a community, region, or nation to meet its economic and social needs into perpetuity, without jeopardizing the ability of other communities or nations to meet their needs, and without degrading the health of ecosystems we rely upon.
Sustainability requires critical shifts to our economy’s structure, whose foundational components include diversity, energy, and trade. There is mounting evidence that the optimum scale to manage these components is at regional and national levels, not at a global level.5 A few shifts include:
- Increasing domestic and regional trade patterns. Shift the current global trade index (60% of all goods produced on Earth are traded across national boundaries) such that no more than 10% of all goods are traded across national boundaries. This requires a vast increase in economic diversity for most nations, which provides an abundance of economic, social, and environmental abundant benefits. Basic policies were shifted to create the current global trade pattern, and a growing policy and program toolbox exists to deflate it.5,[xi]
- Building energy sovereignty. 180 nations have low to no fossil fuel reserves, leaving them highly susceptible to global market forces, including uncertain energy supplies following peak oil (the year 2038 is the latest estimate).[xii] Building adequate regional and national renewable energy systems is a pre-requisite to economic security, and hence to national sovereignty.
- Restoring economic diversity. An abundance of nations have degraded the bottom of their trade pyramid (e.g., agriculture, waste-to-resources, renewable energy, manufacturing). Restoring economic diversity at the bottom of the trade pyramid (more businesses) improves resilience & resistance to turbulence, increases energy-use efficiency, and provides multiple other economic benefits.
Pursuing Sustainability via Economic Restoration
An abundance of people across the political spectrum desire meaningful change toward a sustainable economy. Restoration is the process of attaining that change, by addressing the structure of the system. The Economic Restoration Institute is developing a toolbox of programs, policies, and strategies to help regions thrive during this turbulent century, while increasing their capacity to balance social, environmental, and economic needs. A few ways we do this are:
- Regional economic assessments (evaluating the social, environmental, and industrial elements of an economy), to inform strategic restoration initiatives for businesses, industries, governments, and non-profit organizations.
- Business and industry strategies for increasing economic diversity and productive capacity at the bottom of the balanced trade pyramid: agriculture, renewable energy, waste-to-resources (circularity), and manufacturing.
- Exploring and evaluating economic restoration policies and programs for state and regional entities.
- Leveraging private, public, and philanthropic funds to increase the capacity of sustainable businesses and industries working to meet the needs of regional and state markets.
In the process of economic restoration, we seek to create new opportunities that unite (not divide) people across the political spectrum. For more information about the Economic Restoration Institute, or to start a discussion about a collaborative project, send us a note at info@economicrestoration.org.
Notes and Literature Cited
[i] World Economic Forum. 2025. “Chief Economists’ Outlook.” Sept. 2025. Centre for the New Economy and Society. https://reports.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Chief_Economists_Outlook_September_2025.pdf
[ii] Combs. H. Combs, Harry (1979). Kill Devil Hill: Discovering the Secret of the Wright Brothers. TernStyle Press, Ltd. pp. 68–71, 79. ISBN 0940053020
[iii] Biomimicry is a design approach that evaluates living structures such as birds, to inform the design of physical structures such as airplanes. In fact, Wilbur Wright studied the flight of birds to inform the design of the first planes (Combs, 1979). Today, scientists continue to study birds, as they fly through wind tunnels, to obtain 3-dimensional images of their bodies as they adjust to turbulent forces.
[iv] Per capita productivity growth rates have declined from 8% in the 1970s to less than 3% in the 20-teens. They spiked after COVID in 2021, and receded to 2.9% in 2023. SOURCE: Macrotrends. 2024. ‘U.S. Per Capita GDP Growth Rate’. Macrotrends. Accessed 18 October, 2025. https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/united-states/gdp-growth-rate
[v] Giordanengo, J.H. 2025. Ecosystems as Models for Restoring our Economies (To a sustainable state), 2nd ed. Anthem Press. Additional policies and program tools are found in various Eco-Nomics articles on Substack: https://substack.com/home/post/p-152974814?source=queue
[vi] United Nations. 1987. ‘Our Common Future.’United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Accessed on 12 Feb 2022. https://sdgs.un.org/
[vii] United Nations. 2015. ‘Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.’ United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Accessed on 05 February, 2025. https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda
[viii] Energy Neutrality: A condition whereby the total quantity of energy consumed by a business, home, industry, or economy is met by endogenous energy produced in that same business, home, industry, or economic space.
[ix] Washington Consensus: A series of trade policies facilitated by the United States of America following the 1970s recession, with the aim to increase trade liberation at a global scale, deemed necessary for economic growth in the United States and its trading partners.
[x] Elkington, J. 2018. “25 Years Ago I Coined the Phrase ‘Triple Bottom Line.’” Harvard Business Review. Accessed on 25 September, 2025. https://hbr.org/2018/06/25-years-ago-i-coined-the-phrase-triple-bottom-line-heres-why-im-giving-up-on-it
[xi] Giordanengo, 2025. ‘Chasing Grapes, Shaping Forces, and Crushing Fears.’ Eco-Nomics. Substack. https://substack.com/home/post/p-152974814?source=queue
[xii] GoldmanSachs. 2024. “Peak oil demand is still a decade away.” GoldmanSachs.com. Accessed 15 Oct, 2024. https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/peak-oil-demand-is-still-a-decade-away
