Rethinking Economic Foundations for Sustainable Development: A Comprehensive Assessment of Six Economic Paradigms Against the SDGs

Abstract

Progress toward achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) has been disappointingly slow, raising fundamental questions about whether our dominant economic framework can deliver sustainable development outcomes. This research systematically evaluates six economic paradigms—Neoclassical Welfare Economics, Green Growth, Degrowth, Agrowth, Steady State Economics, and Doughnut Economics—against all 17 SDGs to determine which might better support sustainability transformations. Using a rigorous mixed-methods approach, we first characterize each paradigm according to key attributes, then assess their alignment with SDG objectives using a four-point scoring system. Our analysis reveals that the dominant Neoclassical Welfare Economics paradigm shows the weakest alignment with the SDGs, while alternative frameworks demonstrate significantly stronger alignment: Degrowth, Steady State Economics, Doughnut Economics, Green Growth, and Agrowth. No single paradigm fully addresses all dimensions of sustainable development, with most showing notable weaknesses in people-centered SDGs. Each paradigm demonstrates distinct complementary strengths: Green Growth in technological innovation, Degrowth in redistribution mechanisms, Steady State Economics in resource boundaries, Agrowth in redefining welfare, and Doughnut Economics in balancing social foundations with ecological ceilings. We conclude that selective integration of complementary elements from multiple paradigms offers the most promising pathway forward and propose four specific recommendations: (1) developing integrated assessment frameworks, (2) establishing experimental policy zones, (3) reforming economics education, and (4) creating context-specific transition pathways. This research provides the first comprehensive evaluation of how alternative economic paradigms align with the full spectrum of SDGs, offering crucial guidance for policymakers seeking more effective approaches to sustainable development.

1. Introduction

The multifaceted challenge of sustainable development represents one of humanity’s most pressing concerns, requiring coordinated global action across economic, social, and environmental dimensions. Since the adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, 193 U.N. member states have committed to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a framework for addressing these challenges [1]. However, progress toward these 17 goals has been disappointingly slow, raising fundamental questions about the compatibility of our dominant economic framework with sustainable development objectives and whether it can deliver the transformative changes needed.

Since the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in 1972, the global community has adopted a wealth of Multilateral Environmental Agreements as well as other relevant commitments, including the SDGs and the 2030 Agenda. Fulfillment of the objectives and commitments of all these agreements would take us a long way towards securing a healthy planet for all.

Key recommendation for accelerating action towards a healthy planet for the prosperity of all, Stockholm + 50 Presidents Final Remarks to Plenary [2].

According to the UN, “the global landscape for Sustainable Development Goal implementation has generally deteriorated since 2015” [3] (p. ii). Multiple crises have further hindered progress on poverty reduction (SDG1), hunger (SDG2), education (SDG4), inequality (SDG10), and climate action (SDG13) [4].

Our existing economic system lacks the necessary resilience to effectively withstand shocks [5,6]. While it is broadly accepted that “achieving sustainability rests almost entirely on getting the economy right” [7] (p. 2), the SDGs did not put forth an economic framework for meeting its targets [8], leaving countries to develop their own strategies with limited policy action to drive meaningful change [9].

The evidence increasingly suggests that the current economic paradigm—rooted in neoclassical economics with neoliberal policy implementation—is struggling to deliver on sustainable development. Economic growth, central to the current economic policies, remains a crucial aspect of sustainable development per SDG 8, though the SDGs aim for growth that is “sustained, inclusive and sustainable” (SDG Target 8.4). However, limited empirical evidence supports the notion that economic growth can be “absolutely decoupled” from environmental degradation [10,11,12]. Bonnedahl et al. [13] argue that the current economic paradigm requires environmental ‘constraints’ and structural changes to ensure strong sustainable development.

Despite extensive literature critiquing the SDGs themselves—their contradictions [14], complex interlinkages [15], trade-offs [16], narrow scope [17], and difficulties in tracking progress [18]—there remains a significant gap in comprehensive evaluations of alternative economic paradigms that might better deliver sustainable development. The current literature typically focuses on isolated aspects of these paradigms without systematic comparative analysis of their effectiveness in achieving the full spectrum of SDGs. This leaves policymakers without clear guidance on which economic approaches might best support sustainable development.

This research addresses three key questions: (1) Which economic paradigms demonstrate the strongest alignment with SDG objectives?, (2) What specific strengths and weaknesses do different paradigms exhibit across sustainability dimensions?, and (3) How might complementary elements from multiple paradigms be integrated to better support sustainable development?

Our research makes an original contribution to the sustainability literature by systematically evaluating multiple alternative economic paradigms against the full spectrum of SDGs, resulting in the following key contributions:

(1)

reveals which paradigm better aligns with sustainable development objectives;

(2)

identifies specific strengths and weaknesses across different sustainability dimensions for each paradigm;

(3)

provides the first academic exploration comparing alternative paradigms against all 17 SDGs;

(4)

bridges economic theory and sustainable development practice;

(5)

offers valuable insights for policymakers seeking economic approaches more compatible with achieving the 2030 Agenda.

In economics, the dominant theoretical framework is neoclassical economics. In response to the growing recognition of its limitations, several alternative economic paradigms have gained prominence. This paper focuses on five key alternatives: Green Growth, which seeks to maintain economic growth while reducing environmental impacts; Degrowth, which advocates for reduction in production and consumption among wealthy nations and individuals; Agrowth, which remains agnostic about economic growth while prioritizing social and environmental welfare; Steady State Economics, which aims for stability in population and resource use; and Doughnut Economics, which reconceptualizes the economy as needing to operate within social foundations and ecological ceilings.

This paper provides a concise exploration of concepts and debates surrounding economic paradigms. We begin by examining neoclassical economics and contrasting it with alternatives through qualitative assessment of how they match up with the SDGs. Section 2 details our methodology, Section 3 provides an overview of each economic paradigm, Section 4 presents our findings on paradigm-SDG alignment, and we conclude in Section 5 by discussing implications and suggesting directions for future research and policy development in this critical area.

2. Methodology

To analyze economic paradigms’ alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals, we employed a rigorous 2-step mixed methods approach following Creswell and Plano Clark’s [19] convergent parallel framework. The mixed-methods approach combining qualitative characterization with quantitative scoring was selected because it allows both a rich description of paradigmatic features and systematic comparison across sustainability dimensions, addressing the complexity inherent in sustainability assessment [20,21]. This combination is particularly suited for sustainability research where complex systems thinking is essential [22]. The convergent parallel model was implemented using the steps below, collecting qualitative data (paradigm characteristics from the literature) and quantitative data (scoring against SDGs) simultaneously. The Nilsson scale (see Step 2) provides a structured means of transforming qualitative assessments into quantifiable metrics that enable systematic comparison across paradigms, representing an application of mixed methods where qualitative understanding enriches and contextualizes quantitative scoring.

• Step 1: Systematic Characterization of Economic Paradigms

The authors analyzed six paradigms: Neoclassical Welfare Economics, Green Growth, Degrowth, Agrowth, Steady State Economics, and Doughnut Economics. Each economic paradigm was characterized according to the following five key attributes:

• Paradigmatic goals (normative intent);
• Economic system structure;
• Key actors;
• Elements of a functional economic system;
• Other relevant aspects.

Our literature review examined academic papers, books, and policy documents (1991–2023) using a search strategy in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar with the following search terms: [paradigm name] AND (theory OR framework OR approach OR model). We prioritized seminal works by foundational thinkers in each paradigm and more recent synthesis papers, interpretations, and developments. This approach aligns with Petticrew and Roberts’ [23] guidelines for systematic reviews in social science, focusing on theoretical foundations rather than implementation examples.

• Step 2: Systematic Assessment Against SDGs

The authors independently evaluated how each paradigm addresses the overarching objectives of each SDG using the following 4-point scale adapted from Nilsson et al.’s [24] SDG interaction scoring framework:

• 0 = SDG objective not addressed (no mention in core literature);
• 1 = Indirectly covers SDG-related objectives (mentioned but not central);
• 2 = Directly covers SDG-related objectives but uses a different approach;
• 3 = Directly covers SDG-related objectives using a similar framework.

Following Kroll et al.’s [25] clustering approach, the SDGs were categorized into the following four thematic areas representing the core intentions of the 2030 Agenda [26]:

• People (SDGs 1–5);
• Planet (SDGs 6, 12–15);
• Prosperity (SDGs 7–11);
• Partnerships/Peace (SDGs 16–17).

To ensure reliability, both authors independently conducted the ratings. Initial inter-rater agreement was high across all scoring decisions. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion and reference to the primary literature until a consensus was reached. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion and cross-reference analysis until a consensus was reached, following recommended practices for qualitative content analysis [27]. All ratings were supported by documented evidence from the seminal literature identified through the literature review for each paradigm.

• Methodological Limitations and Mitigation Strategies

Several limitations were identified and addressed. First, our focus on conceptual frameworks rather than implementation examples may overlook practical challenges. We mitigated this by including critiques of each paradigm from the literature. Second, the English-language literature reviewed may introduce Western bias. We partially addressed this by including literature discussing Global South perspectives where available (e.g., [28,29]). Third, qualitative assessments inherently involve subjective judgment. We mitigated this potential bias through an expert panel review (N = 4) of our preliminary findings, the use of a clearly defined scoring system, and reflexive practice acknowledging the research team’s diverse disciplinary backgrounds (economics, environmental science, and political ecology).

This methodological approach enables a transparent, replicable assessment of how different economic paradigms conceptually align with sustainable development objectives while acknowledging the contextual and interpretive nature of such evaluations.

3. Overview of Economic Paradigms

Each economic paradigm brings a distinct perspective on how the global economy functions and how it should be structured to address societal needs. This section analyzes six paradigms through a consistent framework, examining: (1) paradigmatic goals or normative intent, (2) economic system structure, (3) key actors in the system, (4) elements of a functional economic system, and (5) other relevant aspects, all summarized within Table 1. We also provide a critical assessment of each paradigm’s potential to deliver sustainable development outcomes.

3.1. Neoclassical Welfare Economics

Neoclassical Welfare Economics serves as the dominant framework influencing contemporary policy-making [30,31], including approaches to achieving the SDGs [32]. At its core, this paradigm emphasizes prices and markets as essential mechanisms for economic coordination.

As a branch of neoclassical economics, welfare economics examines how markets could operate more efficiently and the appropriate role of government intervention [33]. The paradigm views prices as transmitters of information about consumer preferences and resource scarcity, with markets functioning as mechanisms for efficiently allocating scarce resources—including labor, capital, property, and natural resources—to maximize social welfare [30].

Welfare economics determines social welfare through the Bergson–Samuelson social welfare function, which aggregates individual utility across the population [34]. This approach equates individual welfare with utility—the satisfaction or value derived from consuming goods and services [35]. Significantly, the framework privileges privately purchased market goods over publicly provided services like healthcare and education, though debates persist about whether basic needs can be adequately met through market mechanisms [36].

Under this paradigm, welfare increases when utility is maximized for individuals. Greater wealth generally correlates with increased utility, while maximizing consumer utility generates producer profits, particularly when producers invest in technological innovation and labor productivity improvements. In efficient markets, continued economic growth drives increases in both utility and profits.

However, markets frequently fail to allocate resources efficiently, leading welfare economists to develop cost–benefit analysis (CBA) to evaluate resource allocation efficiency under various conditions [37,38]. Efficiency is achieved either through Pareto efficiency (ensuring no one is worse off with resource reallocation) or Kaldor–Hicks efficiency (where overall gains outweigh losses) [38]. Even in theoretically perfect markets, changes in ownership or competitive structures can disrupt market equilibrium, affecting social welfare [39].

Market failures—including environmental and social externalities such as pollution and social inequities—necessitate government intervention [33,40,41]. Welfare economics generally advocates a limited government role focused on ensuring free competition and trade, protecting property rights, maintaining information transparency, and enforcing laws for market functioning. The paradigm primarily addresses market failures amenable to market-based instruments like taxes or subsidies.

A significant limitation of welfare economics is its focus on average social welfare—total welfare divided by population—without adequately addressing distributional concerns or assessing whether all individuals’ needs are met [33]. This contrasts with the SDGs’ emphasis on universal access to essential goods and services regardless of wealth or income [1]. Additionally, welfare economics generally overlooks diverse individual needs and preferences [42,43] and lacks explicit value for happiness or self-actualization beyond what utility indirectly provides [33].

3.2. Green Growth

The Green Growth paradigm, while rooted in market economics and neoclassical theory, diverges by emphasizing that economic growth must be “decoupled” from environmental degradation and pursued equitably [44]. This approach gained prominence following the 2008 global financial crisis, with major institutions offering various interpretations [7,44,45,46,47,48].

Green Growth advocates argue that transitioning to sustainable economic models would create new wealth and employment opportunities through investment, improved information, and supportive incentives. The paradigm positions governments as creators of enabling environments for a “green economy” by strengthening regulatory frameworks, raising environmental awareness, advancing green technologies, developing green workforces, incentivizing green goods, and disincentivizing environmentally harmful activities [49]. This approach frames sustainability as a business opportunity [50], utilizing market-based government interventions such as carbon taxes, tradeable permits, tax incentives, grants, loan programs, renewable energy subsidies, and fossil fuel subsidy elimination [7,46].

A distinguishing feature of Green Growth is its commodification of environmental assets, treating “ecosystem services” and “natural capital” as exchangeable commodities [51]. While aiming to preserve environmental resources and enhance resource efficiency, it does so primarily to maintain human well-being and wealth [51].

Critics highlight several limitations. Few governments have implemented sufficiently extensive policies to enable green growth transitions or achieve absolute decoupling of economic growth from environmental degradation [10]. Hickel and Kallis [50] suggest that GDP growth rates below 1% annually might be necessary for a genuinely green economy. Resource efficiency faces technical and physical constraints [52], while rebound effects and population growth create challenges for decoupling resource use from environmental impacts [53]. Furthermore, like welfare economics, Green Growth’s focus on economic expansion often fails to address inequitable resource distribution [54]. While the World Bank [44] (p. xi) emphasizes that “Green growth policies must be carefully designed to maximize benefits for, and minimize costs to, the poor and most vulnerable”, equity concerns remain secondary to growth objectives.

3.3. Degrowth

Degrowth represents a radical alternative to growth-centered economic paradigms, explicitly rejecting the primacy of economic growth and its subordination of social and environmental needs. This movement attributes ecological damage (through excessive material and energy consumption) and rising social inequality to the growth imperative embedded in dominant economic models. It further critiques development models that encourage Global South nations to export resources to the Global North through extractivist relationships [55].

Multiple definitions and interpretations of degrowth exist, as documented by Parrique [56], who analyzed various conceptions (e.g., [57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65]). Despite this diversity, Parrique identified core values of autonomy, sufficiency, and care underlying the degrowth vision. Cosme et al. [66], and subsequently Fitzpatrick [67], found that degrowth’s primary objectives include reducing human activities’ environmental impact, redistributing power, wealth, and resources both within and between countries, and transitioning from materialistic to convivial, participatory societies revolving around autonomy, sufficiency, and care.

Degrowth advocates move beyond sustainability transitions limited to market economy reforms [56], instead arguing for multi-scalar structural transformation resulting in reduced material throughput while maintaining human value [68]. The envisioned economic system resembles Ted Trainer’s “Simpler Way” [69]—featuring “mostly small, highly self-sufficient local economies; economic systems under social control and not driven by market forces or the profit motive and highly cooperative and participatory systems” [70]. In this model, most needs are met through sharing, reciprocity, and redistribution, with significantly reduced “right-sized” markets [56]. The ultimate goal is a steady-state economy with stabilized resource use.

Degrowth emphasizes not only outcomes but processes, highlighting “disaccumulation”, “decommodification”, and “decolonization”, particularly in the Global North [71]. For the Global South, degrowth might represent an alternative development pathway [28,29,72], though implementation specifics remain debated. Careful planning and democratic decision-making are considered essential to degrowth transformation [59,60,73].

The paradigm faces implementation challenges, including broad political support [74]. The literature lacks clear transition pathways [75], and most proposed actions involve top-down, state-sanctioned policies [66,67]. While Cuba is sometimes cited as an example of a degrowth transition, it lacks the democratic principles central to degrowth theory [76]. Additionally, the multiple interpretations and definitional ambiguities create difficulties in translating degrowth concepts into actionable policies [77]. The paradigm also provides limited guidance on power redistribution, despite democratic principles being central to its vision.

3.4. Agrowth

The Agrowth paradigm, proposed by Van den Bergh [77,78,79,80,81], takes a distinct position by remaining “agnostic” toward economic growth while critiquing GDP as a measure of social welfare. Rather than debating growth’s merits, Agrowth advocates shifting focus to alternative indicators of social and environmental welfare in policymaking [77,79].

This approach aims to facilitate climate policy acceptance by emphasizing societal benefits rather than growth implications [81]. Critics like Kallis [58] argue that sidestepping the growth debate risks neglecting the root causes of social and environmental problems, potentially sacrificing long-term sustainable development for short-term gains. Van den Bergh [77] acknowledges growth may be appropriate in certain contexts—such as least-developed countries—while maintaining that unlimited long-term growth remains unsustainable.

Agrowth emphasizes developing robust indicators of social and environmental welfare beyond GDP, incorporating measures of health, happiness, leisure, equity, environmental quality, labor (including informal care work), and education. While not specifying preferred metrics, examples include the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW) [82], the Human Development Index, the Gini index, or even the SDGs themselves.

The paradigm envisions a green economy with production and consumption oriented towards environmentally beneficial goods. Drawing on degrowth concepts, it proposes redefining labor productivity to prioritize reduced work hours and increased leisure time rather than higher incomes and consumption (though acknowledging implementation challenges for lower-income households) [77]. Agrowth also addresses consumption patterns by addressing bounded rationality (habits, myopia) and social comparison dynamics that drive environmentally damaging consumption [77] (p. 884).

Like Green Growth, Agrowth operates within a market economy framework with enhanced state intervention, particularly emphasizing climate action and sustainability through global environmental agreements (such as the Paris Climate Accord). It encourages appropriate pricing and technological innovation through market-based instruments. Beyond Green Growth approaches, Agrowth proposes consumption reduction through population growth management (including birth taxes), working hour reductions, and advertising and education regulation [77,81]. While Bongaarts and O’Neill [83] argue population management is necessary for staying within carbon budgets, proposed mechanisms like birth taxes remain controversial, often favoring rich families who bear disproportionate responsibility for carbon emissions [84].

3.5. Steady State Economics

Steady State Economics fundamentally questions the growth imperative, with ecological economist Herman Daly arguing that continuous positive growth creates environmental destruction by exceeding ecological limits, while continuous negative growth causes social harm by undermining basic needs fulfillment [54]. Instead of growth orientation, Daly proposes a steady state economy—stable in population and capital (neither growing nor shrinking) and operating within the ecosystem’s regenerative and assimilative capacity both present and future. This requires limiting resource use and pollution to an “optimum level”, which, while not precisely defined by Daly, aligns conceptually with the planetary boundaries framework [85,86,87].

The steady state approach requires substantial reimagining and regulation of markets when continuous growth is no longer the primary objective: “The market cannot, by itself, keep aggregate throughput below ecological limits, conserve resources for future generations, avoid gross inequities in wealth and income distribution, or prevent overpopulation” [54] (p. 89). Implementation involves comprehensive policy integration across three dimensions: regulations (conservation areas, zoning policies, income limits, flexible working hours, capital mobility restrictions), market-based instruments (cap-auction-trade systems, environmental cost internalization), and economic restructuring (banking system overhaul, free trade limitations, localization) [54,88]. The paradigm also advocates population stabilization, evolving from earlier proposals for birth permits [54] to contemporary emphasis on family planning and reproductive healthcare [88].

While critiquing growth generally, Steady State Economics accepts growth-based development in low-income economies—a position creating potential path dependency challenges, as these economies may eventually require similar transitions away from growth-dependence as high-income nations currently face. Phillips [89] critiques steady state as an incomplete solution, arguing that growth will inevitably resume once sufficient technology develops to decouple growth from environmental impacts. While degrowth advocates often view steady state as an endpoint of transformation, scholarly consensus on growth necessity remains elusive.

3.6. Doughnut Economics

Doughnut Economics, developed by Kate Raworth [90], reimagines the economy as serving both human and ecological needs through a distinctive visual framework. The “doughnut” metaphor features an inner ring representing minimum social foundations for decent living (food, water, housing, health, energy, education, employment, equality, justice, and political voice) and an outer ring establishing ecological ceilings beyond which planetary degradation occurs (climate change, biodiversity loss, etc.). The goal is to operate within this “safe and just space for humanity” between the rings.

This framework shares many conceptual parallels with the SDGs [91], though it notably remains agnostic toward economic growth. Critics like Spash [92] suggest this growth agnosticism potentially indicates an insufficient understanding of systemic drivers behind inequality and ecological degradation.

Raworth [90] identifies five factors essential for creating a safe and just space: population stabilization, resource redistribution, prioritizing human connections over materialism (through arts, culture, and care work), technological innovation within planetary boundaries, and effective governance across scales (city, local, national, international). While market-based, Doughnut Economics assigns critical roles to households, communities/commons, and government entities. Through “distributive by design” systems, the framework shifts away from traditional capitalist structures toward non-profit and distributed ownership models (knowledge systems, technologies, production networks).

Like Green Growth, Doughnut Economics emphasizes resource efficiency, envisioning a circular market economy seeking 98% efficiency through continuous material regeneration. Some scholars question this technical feasibility [92] and note potential contradictions between circular economy concepts and Doughnut Economics’ argument for embedding the economy within society and environment rather than treating it as self-contained [92]. However, Raworth [90] suggests that circularity combined with dematerialism could potentially maintain resource use within ecological ceilings.

3.7. Summary

Table 1 summarizes the key attributes of each economic paradigm, highlighting their diverse approaches to achieving sustainable development. The analysis reveals significant variations in how each paradigm conceptualizes economic goals, structures, actors, and mechanisms.

Neoclassical Welfare Economics offers efficient resource allocation mechanisms but requires explicit policy adjustments to address broader SDG concerns due to its market focus. Green Growth and Doughnut Economics propose more integrated models aligning economic activity with ecological considerations, potentially offering more direct pathways to sustainability. Degrowth and Steady State Economics fundamentally challenge growth paradigms by advocating consumption reduction and balance between economic activities and ecological limits. Agrowth’s pragmatic approach decouples policy from growth metrics to focus on broader well-being indicators, potentially enabling more nuanced sustainable development approaches.

This comparative examination underscores the need for economic frameworks that address specific sustainability goals while accommodating the complex, interconnected nature of the SDGs. The subsequent analysis will evaluate how these paradigms align with specific SDGs and their potential effectiveness in advancing the global sustainable development agenda.

Table 1. Summary of economic paradigm attributes.

Attribute	Neoclassical Welfare Economics	Green Growth	Degrowth	Agrowth	Steady State Economics	Doughnut Economics
Key sources	[33,34]	[7,44,45,46,47,48]	[56,66,67]	[77,79,80,81]	[54,88,93,94]	[90]
Paradigmatic goal(s) (or normative intent)	To make the market work more efficiently; allocate scarce resources (i.e., labor, capital, property, natural resources, etc.) in a way that leads to greater social welfare, defined by maximizing individual utility and producer profits.	Views economic growth as a critical component to reducing poverty, but aims for growth to be “decoupled” from ecological degradation and pursued in an equitable way	To reduce the environmental impact of human activities, redistribute income and wealth both within and between countries, transition from a materialistic society to one that is convivial and participatory	To focus on social and environmental welfare rather than GDP growth; pursues strong climate action	An economy without continuous growth in population and capital (either negative or positive) and one that remains within the regenerative and assimilative capacity of the ecosystem in the present and future.	Staying within a ‘safe and just space for humanity’ through population stabilization, redistribution of resources, greater connection and relationships over materialism, technological innovation, and good governance across all scales
Economic system	Market economy driven by capitalists (private owners)	Market economy driven by capitalists but actively corrects market failures through market-based instruments and strengthened regulatory frameworks	“mostly small, highly self-sufficient local economies; economic systems under social control … and highly cooperative and participatory systems”	Market-based with government interventions	Market-based but with greater regulatory oversight and reimagining	Market but with greater distribution and regeneration
Key actors in the economic system	Market participants (consumers and producers); government intervention only when necessary (laissez faire)	Market participants (consumers, producers), government (enabling environment, innovation)	Community, civil society, households, government, local businesses	Market, government (e.g., global climate agreements, market instruments, birth taxes, work time reduction, regulate advertisements)	Government (enact regulation, market-based instruments), communities, markets	Household, market, commons, state
Elements of a functional economic system	Continued economic growth for social welfare (utility, profits). Market failures corrected with market instruments.	Continued economic growth but with greater resource efficiency (“absolute decoupling”)	Autonomy, sufficiency, and care. End goal is a steady state economy.	Meets social and environmental goals and indicators	“optimum level of population and artifacts”, but focus on stability, not growth. Optimality depends on living standards, resource use, population, time period, and technology, where maximizing any one factor has its own set of tradeoffs.
Other aspects		Commodifies environmental assets	Rejects growth; achieved by “disaccumulation”, “decommodification”, and “decolonization”, careful planning, democratic and participatory process; alternative development pathways	Agnostic to growth	Growth required in low-income economies	Agnostic to growth
Keywords	Market goods, market efficiency, market failures and externalities, resource allocation, utility maximization, profit maximization, economic growth, laissez faire	Resource efficiency, economic growth, environmental decoupling, poverty reduction, equitable growth, inclusive growth, correcting market failures, green economy, green goods, green bads	Downsized economy, ecological compatibility, reduce consumption, sufficiency, redistribution, convivial, participatory, local economy, community, autonomy, democracy, care	Growth agnostic, depolarize growth, social welfare, environmental welfare, indicators, market instruments, global agreements, work time reduction, advertising regulation, population growth reduction, birth taxes	Without growth, stability, optimality, regenerative, market reimagining, market restructuring, local economies, population stabilization, capital stabilization	Ecological ceiling, planetary boundaries, social foundation, growth agnostic, redistributive, regenerative, dematerialism, circular economy, resource efficiency, technological innovation, governance, population stabilization, connections, care

Table 1. Summary of economic paradigm attributes.

Attribute	Neoclassical Welfare Economics	Green Growth	Degrowth	Agrowth	Steady State Economics	Doughnut Economics
Key sources	[33,34]	[7,44,45,46,47,48]	[56,66,67]	[77,79,80,81]	[54,88,93,94]	[90]
Paradigmatic goal(s) (or normative intent)	To make the market work more efficiently; allocate scarce resources (i.e., labor, capital, property, natural resources, etc.) in a way that leads to greater social welfare, defined by maximizing individual utility and producer profits.	Views economic growth as a critical component to reducing poverty, but aims for growth to be “decoupled” from ecological degradation and pursued in an equitable way	To reduce the environmental impact of human activities, redistribute income and wealth both within and between countries, transition from a materialistic society to one that is convivial and participatory	To focus on social and environmental welfare rather than GDP growth; pursues strong climate action	An economy without continuous growth in population and capital (either negative or positive) and one that remains within the regenerative and assimilative capacity of the ecosystem in the present and future.	Staying within a ‘safe and just space for humanity’ through population stabilization, redistribution of resources, greater connection and relationships over materialism, technological innovation, and good governance across all scales
Economic system	Market economy driven by capitalists (private owners)	Market economy driven by capitalists but actively corrects market failures through market-based instruments and strengthened regulatory frameworks	“mostly small, highly self-sufficient local economies; economic systems under social control … and highly cooperative and participatory systems”	Market-based with government interventions	Market-based but with greater regulatory oversight and reimagining	Market but with greater distribution and regeneration
Key actors in the economic system	Market participants (consumers and producers); government intervention only when necessary (laissez faire)	Market participants (consumers, producers), government (enabling environment, innovation)	Community, civil society, households, government, local businesses	Market, government (e.g., global climate agreements, market instruments, birth taxes, work time reduction, regulate advertisements)	Government (enact regulation, market-based instruments), communities, markets	Household, market, commons, state
Elements of a functional economic system	Continued economic growth for social welfare (utility, profits). Market failures corrected with market instruments.	Continued economic growth but with greater resource efficiency (“absolute decoupling”)	Autonomy, sufficiency, and care. End goal is a steady state economy.	Meets social and environmental goals and indicators	“optimum level of population and artifacts”, but focus on stability, not growth. Optimality depends on living standards, resource use, population, time period, and technology, where maximizing any one factor has its own set of tradeoffs.
Other aspects		Commodifies environmental assets	Rejects growth; achieved by “disaccumulation”, “decommodification”, and “decolonization”, careful planning, democratic and participatory process; alternative development pathways	Agnostic to growth	Growth required in low-income economies	Agnostic to growth
Keywords	Market goods, market efficiency, market failures and externalities, resource allocation, utility maximization, profit maximization, economic growth, laissez faire	Resource efficiency, economic growth, environmental decoupling, poverty reduction, equitable growth, inclusive growth, correcting market failures, green economy, green goods, green bads	Downsized economy, ecological compatibility, reduce consumption, sufficiency, redistribution, convivial, participatory, local economy, community, autonomy, democracy, care	Growth agnostic, depolarize growth, social welfare, environmental welfare, indicators, market instruments, global agreements, work time reduction, advertising regulation, population growth reduction, birth taxes	Without growth, stability, optimality, regenerative, market reimagining, market restructuring, local economies, population stabilization, capital stabilization	Ecological ceiling, planetary boundaries, social foundation, growth agnostic, redistributive, regenerative, dematerialism, circular economy, resource efficiency, technological innovation, governance, population stabilization, connections, care

4. Results and Discussion

This section presents the findings from our analysis of how each economic paradigm aligns with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Our assessment methodically evaluates the extent to which each paradigm addresses the main objectives of the SDGs.

4.1. Paradigm-SDG Alignment Overview

The analysis reveals distinct attributes of each economic paradigm when evaluated against the SDGs. Initially, we examined whether each paradigm explicitly references, mentions, or contributes to the goals that correspond with specific SDGs. This evaluation is crucial for understanding how theoretical economic frameworks can be practically applied to achieve sustainable development.

The results of this assessment are organized in Table 2 and Table 3, which categorize the 17 SDGs into four main intentions: People (SDGs 1–5), Prosperity (SDGs 7–11), Planet (SDGs 6, 12–15), and Partnerships and Peace (SDGs 16 and 17) [adopted from 26]. Each paradigm’s alignment with these categories provides insights into their potential effectiveness in fostering sustainable development across different dimensions. For a detailed breakdown of how each paradigm relates to individual SDGs, refer to the Supplemental Data for the primary data table.

Table 2. Economic paradigms and how they compare to the SDGs (green—3 pts: similar to SDG; yellow—2 pts: covers SDG objective but uses a different approach; orange—1 pt: indirectly covers SDG issue (1.5 is used when there is partial coverage of the SDG objective in a direct manner); red—0 pts: no mention of SDG objective). See Supplementary Materials for detailed scoring matrix.

	SDGs	Welfare Economics	Green Growth	Degrowth	Agrowth	Steady State	Doughnut Economics
People	1	1	1	3	3	3	3
	2	0	1.5	2	1	1	1.5
	3	0	0	2	1.5	1	1.5
	4	0	1	1	1	0	3
	5	0	0	2	1	2	2
Prosperity	7	0	2	2	2	1.5	3
	8	1.5	3	2	2	1.5	1.5
	9	1	3	1.5	1.5	1.5	3
	10	1	1	3	1.5	3	3
	11	0	1.5	2	0	0	1.5
Planet	6	0	2	1	1	1.5	1.5
	12	0	3	3	3	3	3
	13	0	1.5	1.5	1.5	1.5	1.5
	14	0	3	1	3	3	3
	15	0	1	1.5	1.5	3	1.5
Partnerships & Peace	16	0	1	2	0	1.5	3
	17	2	3	3	3	3	1.5
Total score		6.5	28.5	33.5	27.5	31	38

Table 2. Economic paradigms and how they compare to the SDGs (green—3 pts: similar to SDG; yellow—2 pts: covers SDG objective but uses a different approach; orange—1 pt: indirectly covers SDG issue (1.5 is used when there is partial coverage of the SDG objective in a direct manner); red—0 pts: no mention of SDG objective). See Supplementary Materials for detailed scoring matrix.

	SDGs	Welfare Economics	Green Growth	Degrowth	Agrowth	Steady State	Doughnut Economics
People	1	1	1	3	3	3	3
	2	0	1.5	2	1	1	1.5
	3	0	0	2	1.5	1	1.5
	4	0	1	1	1	0	3
	5	0	0	2	1	2	2
Prosperity	7	0	2	2	2	1.5	3
	8	1.5	3	2	2	1.5	1.5
	9	1	3	1.5	1.5	1.5	3
	10	1	1	3	1.5	3	3
	11	0	1.5	2	0	0	1.5
Planet	6	0	2	1	1	1.5	1.5
	12	0	3	3	3	3	3
	13	0	1.5	1.5	1.5	1.5	1.5
	14	0	3	1	3	3	3
	15	0	1	1.5	1.5	3	1.5
Partnerships & Peace	16	0	1	2	0	1.5	3
	17	2	3	3	3	3	1.5
Total score		6.5	28.5	33.5	27.5	31	38

Table 3. Summary of how each of the four SDG elements are addressed by the six economic paradigms.

	Neoclassical Welfare Economics	Green Growth	Degrowth	Agrowth	Steady State	Doughnut Economics
Key sources 1	[33,34]	[7,44,45,46,47,48]	[56,66,67]	[77,79,80,81]	[54,88,93,94]	[90]
People	Theorizes that utility is increased through economic growth, indirectly reducing poverty. Hunger, health, education, and gender equality are not addressed.	Like welfare economics, believes economic growth indirectly reduces poverty. Promotes training and education for a green economy.	Poverty reduction through redistribution of wealth and income.	Robust indicators of social welfare, including health, happiness, leisure, equity, environmental quality, and labor (including informal care work). Promotes population control policies.	Advocates for poverty reduction through minimum and maximum income limits. Family planning and reproductive justice (for population control).	Seeks minimum social foundations for decent living, including food, water, housing, health, energy, education, jobs and equality.
Prosperity	Pursues economic growth to maximize utility and profits. Market-based instruments are used to facilitate innovation and industrialization, but sustainability is not guaranteed. Inequality not addressed by market.	Encourages green innovation, technologies, and jobs. Pursues economic growth to reduce poverty.	Rejects economic growth for social welfare. Community-centric with more sharing. Inequality reduction through redistribution of wealth and income within and between countries. Flexible labor, valuing care, and informal labor.	Agnostic to economic growth. Encourages green innovation, technologies, and jobs. Prioritizes reduced work hours and greater leisure time.	Proposes stable growth in developed countries as opposed to continuous positive or negative growth. Pursues economic growth in developing countries to reduce poverty. Inequality reduction through minimum and maximum income limits. Internalize externalities through the market.	Aspire for relationships and connections over materialism. Agnostic to economic growth. Promotes technological innovation for a regenerative economy. Seeks distribution of income and resources to reduce inequality. Focus on commons.
Planet	Values social welfare (anthropocentric). Does not pursue environmental protection. Instead, economic growth leads to degradation. These externalities are not reflected in prices.	Encourages green innovation, technologies, and jobs to decouple growth from environmental degradation. Views ecosystem services and natural capital as commodities.	Aims to reduce environmental impact of human activities by transitioning away from materialism towards sufficiency.	Primary focus is on environmental protection. Rejects status consumption.	Encourages physical materials approach to resource use (i.e., depletion quotas), resulting in no to little degradation.	Explicit ecological ceiling before planetary degradation occurs, such as climate change or biodiversity loss. Community-based governance over commons, and dematerialism.
Partnerships and Peace	Existing global trade partnerships.	Environmental agreements and partnerships.	Transition to a convivial and participatory society. Democratic decision-making.	Aims for global climate agreements (such as the Paris Agreement).	Promotes localization and overhaul of the global financial system. Reduce monopolies and income inequalities for peace and better representation.	Minimum social foundations for justice and a political voice. Good governance. Decrease unfair trade and globalization.

¹ See Supplementary Materials for additional details and sources.

Table 3. Summary of how each of the four SDG elements are addressed by the six economic paradigms.

	Neoclassical Welfare Economics	Green Growth	Degrowth	Agrowth	Steady State	Doughnut Economics
Key sources 1	[33,34]	[7,44,45,46,47,48]	[56,66,67]	[77,79,80,81]	[54,88,93,94]	[90]
People	Theorizes that utility is increased through economic growth, indirectly reducing poverty. Hunger, health, education, and gender equality are not addressed.	Like welfare economics, believes economic growth indirectly reduces poverty. Promotes training and education for a green economy.	Poverty reduction through redistribution of wealth and income.	Robust indicators of social welfare, including health, happiness, leisure, equity, environmental quality, and labor (including informal care work). Promotes population control policies.	Advocates for poverty reduction through minimum and maximum income limits. Family planning and reproductive justice (for population control).	Seeks minimum social foundations for decent living, including food, water, housing, health, energy, education, jobs and equality.
Prosperity	Pursues economic growth to maximize utility and profits. Market-based instruments are used to facilitate innovation and industrialization, but sustainability is not guaranteed. Inequality not addressed by market.	Encourages green innovation, technologies, and jobs. Pursues economic growth to reduce poverty.	Rejects economic growth for social welfare. Community-centric with more sharing. Inequality reduction through redistribution of wealth and income within and between countries. Flexible labor, valuing care, and informal labor.	Agnostic to economic growth. Encourages green innovation, technologies, and jobs. Prioritizes reduced work hours and greater leisure time.	Proposes stable growth in developed countries as opposed to continuous positive or negative growth. Pursues economic growth in developing countries to reduce poverty. Inequality reduction through minimum and maximum income limits. Internalize externalities through the market.	Aspire for relationships and connections over materialism. Agnostic to economic growth. Promotes technological innovation for a regenerative economy. Seeks distribution of income and resources to reduce inequality. Focus on commons.
Planet	Values social welfare (anthropocentric). Does not pursue environmental protection. Instead, economic growth leads to degradation. These externalities are not reflected in prices.	Encourages green innovation, technologies, and jobs to decouple growth from environmental degradation. Views ecosystem services and natural capital as commodities.	Aims to reduce environmental impact of human activities by transitioning away from materialism towards sufficiency.	Primary focus is on environmental protection. Rejects status consumption.	Encourages physical materials approach to resource use (i.e., depletion quotas), resulting in no to little degradation.	Explicit ecological ceiling before planetary degradation occurs, such as climate change or biodiversity loss. Community-based governance over commons, and dematerialism.
Partnerships and Peace	Existing global trade partnerships.	Environmental agreements and partnerships.	Transition to a convivial and participatory society. Democratic decision-making.	Aims for global climate agreements (such as the Paris Agreement).	Promotes localization and overhaul of the global financial system. Reduce monopolies and income inequalities for peace and better representation.	Minimum social foundations for justice and a political voice. Good governance. Decrease unfair trade and globalization.

¹ See Supplementary Materials for additional details and sources.

Our findings in Table 2 clearly demonstrate that the dominant economic paradigm, Neoclassical Welfare Economics, shows the weakest alignment with the SDGs, scoring only 6.5 points overall. This is not surprising, given that the SDGs were designed to address the omissions and failures of the existing system. In contrast, Doughnut Economics (38 points), Degrowth (33.5 points), Steady State (31 points), Green Growth (28.5 points), and Agrowth (27.5 points) all demonstrate significantly stronger alignment with various aspects of the SDGs.

Building on these initial findings, our review of the four SDG intentions reveals significant thematic strengths and weaknesses across the alternative economic paradigms. It becomes evident that many paradigms exhibit considerable shortcomings, particularly in addressing People-centered SDGs. This observation underscores a potential misalignment in their theoretical frameworks when it comes to tackling social equity comprehensively. Considerable variation also exists in how different paradigms address Prosperity-centered SDGs. This heterogeneity may be attributed to the broad nature of the Prosperity-centered SDGs themselves, which encompass diverse domains such as energy access, industrial development, economic growth, inequality reduction, and cities. Regarding the Planet-centered SDGs, while all alternative paradigms offer some degree of coverage, Steady State Economics followed by Doughnut Economics demonstrates exceptional attention to environmental sustainability. Similarly, all alternative paradigms fully address at least one of the Partnership and Peace-centered SDGs, indicating some recognition of governance and implementation mechanisms.

4.2. Comparing Paradigms Across Sustainable Development Dimensions

We now analyze the economic paradigms across four key dimensions that emerge as critical for sustainable development: (1) approach to economic growth and markets, (2) environmental protection mechanisms, (3) equity considerations, and (4) governance structures. This multi-dimensional analysis provides a more systematic understanding of paradigmatic differences and potential complementarities.

• Growth Orientation

The paradigms display fundamentally different orientations toward economic growth (SDG 8), representing perhaps the most significant philosophical divergence between them. As Hickel and Kallis [50] argue, these growth perspectives are not merely technical differences but reflect deeper ethical and political positions regarding societal organization.

Neoclassical Welfare Economics and Green Growth both position continuous economic growth as essential for social welfare, though they differ in their environmental considerations. Green Growth maintains that technological innovation can decouple growth from environmental impacts [46], a position increasingly challenged by empirical evidence [10,11]. As Vadén et al. [12] demonstrate through a systematic literature review, absolute decoupling remains largely theoretical rather than empirically supported.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, Degrowth explicitly rejects the growth imperative, with proponents like Kallis [59] and Hickel [95] arguing that continuous growth in high-income economies is both ecologically unsustainable and socially unnecessary. Steady State also critiques continuous positive growth as environmentally and socially harmful, though views it as necessary for developing economies. Agrowth and Doughnut Economics remain growth-agnostic, focusing instead on social and environmental welfare metrics rather than GDP growth [77,90]. As O’Neill et al. [96] and subsequently Fanning et al. [97] empirically demonstrated, many countries achieve high social performance without high GDP per capita, suggesting alternative development pathways exist.

• Environmental Protection Mechanisms

The paradigms employ distinctly different mechanisms for environmental protection (the planet-centered SDGs). Neoclassical economics treats environmental damage as externalities requiring correction through market instruments, a position that Common and Stagl [98] critique as fundamentally inadequate for addressing biophysical limits. Agrowth and Green Growth rely heavily on efficiency improvements, technological innovation and deployment like renewable energy, and market-based instruments like carbon pricing to reduce environmental impacts. In contrast, Steady State Economics employs direct biophysical limits through mechanisms like resource caps and extraction limits [93]. As Spash [92] notes, these approaches represent fundamentally different conceptions of sustainability—weak versus strong sustainability.

Degrowth and Doughnut Economics focus on reducing material throughput by transforming consumption patterns and production systems. Jackson [75] and Raworth [90] both emphasize the need to reconsider the meaning of prosperity beyond material consumption. Research by Wiedmann et al. [99] on planetary boundaries and material footprints provides empirical support for these paradigms’ emphasis on absolute reduction rather than relative efficiency.

• Equity Considerations

The economic paradigms differ significantly in their approach to equity and equality (people-centered SDGs and SDG 10). Almost all paradigms make efforts to explicitly address poverty reduction (SDG 1), though they approach it differently. Many of the paradigms fail to explicitly address zero hunger (SDG 2), good health and wellbeing (SDG 3), or education (SDG 4). There is also significant divergence in approaches to gender equality (SDG 5). This represents a critical gap, as these fundamental human needs form the foundation of sustainable development.

Neoclassical Welfare Economics primarily concerns allocative efficiency rather than distributive justice, relying on the principle that growth eventually benefits all [38]. Sen [100] and Stiglitz et al. [101] have long critiqued this approach for overlooking distributive outcomes and multidimensional well-being.

Degrowth places equity at its center and shows the strongest alignment with People-centered SDGs, with explicit mechanisms for redistribution both within and between countries [71]. This North–South dimension is particularly significant, as Hickel [102] demonstrates through analysis of historical ecological debt. While degrowth takes an indirect approach to addressing the environment, empirical work by Wilkinson and Pickett [103] and Dorling [104] demonstrates strong correlations between income equality and social and environmental outcomes. Doughnut Economics similarly emphasizes distributive design as a core principle [90], while Steady State Economics proposes specific policies like minimum and maximum income limits to reduce income-related inequalities [93].

Degrowth, Agrowth, and Doughnut Economics also emphasize the importance of caregiving and informal work in the economy, roles commonly held by women. Gender and reproductive justice are also viewed as an important equity consideration by the Steady State paradigm, although mainly for the benefit of reducing population growth.

• Governance Scales and Structures

Governance approaches (Partnerships and Peace-centered SDGs) vary considerably across paradigms, with implications for implementation. The degree to which markets, governments, communities, or other actors should play a part in the economy depends on the paradigm, and each system has different strengths and weaknesses when addressing SDGs. Neoclassical economics and Green Growth rely primarily on national governments working with markets, whereas Degrowth emphasizes community-level democracy and participation [68] and Doughnut Economics focuses on publicly-owned goods and the commons. As Ostrom’s [105] work demonstrates, polycentric governance systems may be more effective for environmental commons management than either pure market or centralized state solutions.

There are tensions between the scale and where each alternative economic paradigm operates (global, national, community) and the degree to which markets are utilized. Green Growth and Agrowth propose continued use of market-based instruments to rectify market failures and encourage private investment in a green economy, while Degrowth, Steady State, and Doughnut Economics focus more on public goods with a much more limited use of the market.

Markets operate globally, yet the SDGs focus primarily on state-centered solutions, with SDG 17 being the exception in its global governance focus. Degrowth argues that with globalism’s rise, nation–states are less likely to consider local interests, necessitating more community-level decision-making. Conversely, the government may better represent broader interests, and a large community focus could lead to local variations in standards and incoherent global sustainability efforts. Doughnut Economics promotes nested governance systems operating at multiple scales from local to global, while Agrowth and Steady State Economics seek strong regulatory institutions at the state level and significant institutional capacity to enforce policies and regulations. These governance differences align with Biermann’s [106] analysis of earth system governance, which emphasizes the need for institutional arrangements that match ecological scales.

Scale also has significant implications for resource use and environmental impact, as industrialized countries exhibit distinct resource use patterns at high economic performance and are responsible for much global resource extraction and environmental damage [55]. Degrowth acknowledges North–South dimensions, recognizing that largely organic production modes remain prevalent in many Global South rural areas.

4.3. Challenges and Gaps in Economic Paradigms and SDGs

This analysis illuminates several gaps in the SDGs themselves, including contradictions between different goals, and insufficient attention to population growth, decolonization, land rights, structural inequality, and redistribution. While inequality underpins many current problems and features prominently in alternative economic paradigms, it is limited to SDG 10 in the SDG framework [15].

Other concerns include policy coherence challenges that can result in conflicting policies hindering SDG progress and the lack of a theoretical foundation for sustainable development, as described further in the next section. Countries adopting divergent interpretations for national-level implementation create challenges for achieving the SDGs at scale [107]. Tradeoffs between goals present additional challenges. Achieving some goals may undermine others—for example, increasing economic growth may accelerate environmental degradation. Therefore, policy coherence, theoretical frameworks for sustainable development, and tradeoff management are critical for SDG implementation.

Additionally, the SDGs’ core values emphasize economic sustainability (growth), reduced economic inequality, and reduced multidimensional poverty. Over a third of the goals center on prosperity and take an anthropocentric perspective. This reflects the “dominant worldview which has created a historical division between social and environmental relations. This human-nature dualism has rendered invisible the patterns of ecological destruction embedded in a capitalist world ecology” [108].

4.4. Implications for Sustainable Development Theory and Practice

Our systematic comparison of economic paradigms against the SDGs yields several profound implications for sustainable development: (1) theory, (2) policy, and (3) implementation. These findings contribute to addressing a critical gap: the lack of theoretical foundations for achieving the SDGs.

• Theoretical Implications

First, our analysis demonstrates that the current dominant economic paradigm—Neoclassical Welfare Economics—is fundamentally misaligned with sustainable development objectives. This misalignment is not merely a matter of implementation but reflects deeper conceptual incompatibilities between market-centric welfare maximization and the holistic social-ecological vision embodied in the SDGs. This finding confirms Bonnedahl et al.’s [13] assertion that the current economic paradigm requires substantial structural changes to ensure strong sustainable development.

Second, we find that while alternative economic paradigms offer significantly stronger alignment with the SDGs, no single paradigm fully addresses all dimensions of sustainable development. This suggests that sustainable development theory should evolve toward what Stirling [109] terms “plural radical pathways” rather than a single universal approach. The interdependence of SDG elements that Le Blanc [110] and Nilsson et al. [24] have mapped requires theoretical frameworks capable of addressing these complex interlinkages.

Third, our research reveals a significant gap in most economic paradigms regarding people-centered SDGs, particularly health, education, and gender equality. This suggests the need for stronger integration between economic theory and social policy research, as Raworth [90] advocates in her call for economics to be embedded within social foundations.

• Policy Integration and Complementarity

Our findings suggest that policymakers should consider selective integration of elements from different economic paradigms rather than wholesale adoption of any single framework. For example, Green Growth’s emphasis on technological innovation could be combined with Degrowth’s focus on redistribution and Steady State’s clear resource boundaries. This integrative approach aligns with what Meadowcroft [111] and O’Brien [112] have termed “transformative policy mixes” for sustainability transitions.

Specifically, we identify three complementary policy clusters that could be integrated:

• Ecological boundaries and resource management: Steady State and Doughnut Economics provide robust frameworks for establishing absolute resource limits and ecological boundaries, addressing what Richardson et al. [87] identify as critical planetary boundaries now being transgressed.
• Social equity and redistribution mechanisms: Degrowth and Doughnut Economics offer the strongest frameworks for addressing inequality, aligning with growing evidence from Piketty [113] and others that inequality reduction is essential for both social and environmental sustainability.
• Innovation and efficiency improvements: Green Growth and Agrowth provide valuable approaches to technological innovation and efficiency, which, while insufficient alone, remain necessary components of sustainability transitions as documented by the IPCC [114].

Multiple scholars have advocated for such integrative approaches, including Göpel [115], who argues for “mindshift” combinations of economic thinking, and Buch-Hansen [116], who proposes selective integration of degrowth, steady state, and green economy elements.

• Implementation Pathways

The implementation of sustainability-oriented economic approaches faces significant challenges, which our analysis helps to illuminate. First, as Hausknost and Hammond [117] observe, powerful economic interests and institutional path dependencies constrain transformative change. Achieving sustainable development without strong political consensus remains difficult. Our findings suggest that different economic paradigms may be more feasible in different contexts—with Green Growth potentially serving as a transitional framework in contexts where more transformative approaches face political resistance.

Second, scale considerations are crucial. Our analysis supports Ostrom’s [105] proposition that nested, polycentric governance systems are needed to address sustainability challenges across scales. Local experimentation with Degrowth or Doughnut principles can proceed alongside national Green Growth policies and international Steady State resource governance.

Third, implementation will require what Scoones et al. [118] term “transformative alliances” between different actors. The varying actor emphases across paradigms (market, state, community) should be viewed as complementary rather than competitive, with businesses, governments, and civil society all playing essential roles in different aspects of sustainable development. Effective approaches likely require both top–down leadership and bottom–up participation.

5. Conclusions

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development presents an ambitious vision for transforming our world, but achieving its 17 interconnected goals requires economic frameworks capable of addressing complex sustainability challenges. Our systematic evaluation of six economic paradigms—Neoclassical Welfare Economics, Green Growth, Degrowth, Agrowth, Steady State Economics, and Doughnut Economics—reveals critical insights into their potential effectiveness in delivering sustainable development.

Our systematic evaluation of six economic paradigms against the Sustainable Development Goals addresses a critical research gap: which economic frameworks can most effectively deliver sustainable development? By methodically assessing each paradigm against all 17 SDGs, we demonstrate that the dominant Neoclassical Welfare Economics framework (scoring just 6.5 points) is fundamentally misaligned with sustainable development objectives. This misalignment helps explain the “deteriorating landscape for SDG implementation” reported by the United Nations [3].

Alternative paradigms show considerably stronger alignment (see Figure 1—particularly Doughnut Economics (38 points), Degrowth (33.5 points), and Steady State Economics (31 points). However, our dimensional analysis reveals that no single paradigm fully addresses all aspects of sustainable development. Each demonstrates distinct strengths: Green Growth excels in technological innovation; Degrowth offers robust frameworks for redistribution; Steady State Economics provides clear mechanisms for resource boundaries; and Doughnut Economics effectively balances social foundations with ecological ceilings.

Our comparative framework—examining paradigms across dimensions of growth orientation, environmental protection, equity, and governance—demonstrates that these alternatives should be viewed as complementary rather than competing approaches. This finding advances beyond the current literature that tends to examine these paradigms in isolation [8] or position them as competing alternatives [50].

Several critical tensions must be addressed: between transformative changes advocated by alternative paradigms and the incremental approach embedded in the SDGs; between global sustainability objectives and the varying scales at which different economic approaches operate; and regarding the relative roles of markets, states, and communities in driving sustainable transformation.

Based on our analysis, we offer four specific recommendations:

• Develop integrated assessment frameworks that combine complementary strengths from multiple economic paradigms, particularly addressing current gaps in social dimensions and extending approaches pioneered by Costanza et al. [119].
• Establish experimental policy zones for testing alternative economic approaches, implementing concrete policy packages combining resource caps (from Steady State Economics), redistribution mechanisms (from Degrowth), and green innovation incentives (from Green Growth).
• Reform economics education to incorporate diverse economic paradigms, addressing the narrow orthodoxy critiqued by Raworth [90] and expanding the conceptual toolkit available to future policymakers.
• Develop context-specific transition pathways, recognizing that high-income countries may need to focus on consumption reduction (Degrowth elements), while low-income countries might prioritize basic needs fulfillment through resource-efficient development (combining Green Growth and Doughnut Economics approaches).

This study has several limitations that should inform future research. Our analysis focused primarily on theoretical frameworks rather than implementation examples, and our selection of six paradigms is not exhaustive. Emerging frameworks such as feminist economics and foundational economics warrant similar systematic evaluation. Future research should focus on developing detailed case studies examining how elements of these economic paradigms perform in specific contexts. This would include analyzing existing policy experiments implementing aspects of alternative economic approaches (such as well-being economies in Scotland and New Zealand, circular economy initiatives in Amsterdam, or post-growth policies in Japan), and developing context-specific transition pathways for regions with different development needs and institutional capacities.

In conclusion, moving beyond the neoclassical economic paradigm is essential for achieving the SDGs, but no single alternative offers a complete solution. The path forward lies in the thoughtful integration of complementary elements from multiple paradigms, adapted to specific contexts and implemented through coordinated action across governance scales. By developing such integrative approaches, policymakers can forge economic systems capable of delivering on the promise of sustainable development—meeting human needs within planetary boundaries while leaving no one behind.