Module 9: Wellbeing policy impact assessment
Wellbeing elsewhere
Currently, most wellbeing policy impact assessments focus on impacts on local wellbeing outcomes, that is, wellbeing outcomes within a government’s borders. Systematic consideration of impacts on wellbeing outside of a government’s border is much rarer. Module 6 described how the ‘wellbeing elsewhere’ dimension is missing from most government wellbeing frameworks, although several governments, including in Scotland, Wales, New Zealand and the Netherlands, have started to monitor cross-border wellbeing impacts.
‘Wellbeing elsewhere’ can feel ‘far away’ and ‘out of reach’. Yet, in a highly interdependent world, policies in one place can have considerable positive or negative effects on wellbeing in other places. GDP-rich countries in particular generate large negative impacts on social and environmental wellbeing in Majority World countries, which already suffer from historical injustices based on colonialism. Examples include the consumption of goods that are linked to deforestation and poor labour standards in places elsewhere, the export of waste, and high levels of CO2 emissions that impact the lives of people globally [1].
What are Majority World countries?
The term “Majority World” was first coined in the 1990s by Bangladeshi photographer and social activist Shahidul Alam: “In the early 1990s, I began advocating for a new expression "majority world" to represent what has formerly been known as the "Third World." The term highlights the fact that we are indeed the majority of humankind” [2]. The term Majority World, now increasingly being used, defines the community in terms of what it has, rather than what it lacks. It challenges the West's rhetoric of democracy as well as the notion of ‘developed’ versus ‘developing’ countries.
Even well-intended policies can have negative impacts elsewhere. For example, efforts to replace fuel-powered cars with electrified versions in certain parts of the world require unprecedented levels of lithium mining in others, which often happens under poor working conditions, drives up water and energy use, causes air and water pollution, affects health outcomes and disrupts communities in places that remain out of sight for most of those driving their new electric vehicles [3] [4].
Then, how to better consider impacts on wellbeing elsewhere when designing policy interventions? A source of inspiration is the ‘Doughnut Unrolled’ toolkit, which supports policymakers in matching local aspirations with global responsibilities. The Doughnut Unrolled tool invites policymakers to think about impact through ‘four lenses’: a local-social lens, a local-ecological lens, a global-ecological lens and a global-social lens. The toolkit includes an introduction to each of these four lenses, as well as a selection of participatory workshop approaches to explore the four lenses in relation to a place or specific topic.
The global-ecological lens
The global-ecological lens explores how every place has impacts on the health of the whole planet through the energy it uses, the products it imports and the stream of waste it exports Think of the food, clothing, electronics, consumer goods, and construction materials brought daily into your locality, and the stream of waste that flows out. This resource use creates a global footprint that puts pressure on the health of the planet. How can each place act on its global responsibility to live within planetary boundaries?
Example questions for the global-ecological lens are:
How can we decarbonise transport and heating?
How can we cut waste and create a circular economy?
How can we produce more locally to reduce global impact?
How do lifestyles here put pressure on the planet?
The global-social lens
The global-social lens explores how actions and decisions taken in one place can have impacts - both positive and negative - on the lives of people worldwide. Global supply chains connect local shoppers to workers worldwide. Cultural connections build solidarity through education, arts and sports. Local policies and attitudes shape how refugees and migrants are perceived and welcomed. In all these ways - and many more - there are opportunities to take action in every locality that help to respect the rights and opportunities of others.
Example questions for the global-social lens are:
Whose labour made the products on sale here?
How can cultural connections create opportunity and solidarity?
How do resource-intensive lifestyles here impact the lives of people worldwide?
How do we welcome those seeking safety and refuge?
The global lenses in the Amsterdam City Portrait
Click on the card to learn more about how the Amsterdam City Council has applied the global lenses to identify challenges that need to be addressed as well as opportunities for change.
References:
[1] Ishii, N., Lafortune, G., Esty, D., Berthet, E., Fuller, G., Kawasaki, A., Bermont-Diaz, L. & Allali, S. (2024). Global Commons Stewardship Index 2024. SDSN, Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy, and Center for Global Commons at the University of Tokyo. Paris; New Haven, CT; and Tokyo.
[2] Alam, S. (2008). Majority World: Challenging the West's Rhetoric of Democracy. Amerasia Journal, 34 (1): 87-98.
[3] Liu, W. Agusdinata, D.B., Myint, S.W. (2019). “Spatiotemporal patterns of lithium mining and environmental degradation in the Atacama Salt Flat, Chile”. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 80: 145-156.
[4] Dunlap, A. & Riquito, M. (2023). “Social warfare for lithium extraction? Open-pit lithium mining, counterinsurgency tactics and enforcing green extractivism in northern Portugal.” Energy Research & Social Science, 95.