5.3.1 Risks Associated with Traditional Economic Growth

A few essential tenets serve as the foundation for a regenerative approach to economic development. Secondly, wealth is something that every society, including those with limited resources, possesses by nature. This wealth manifests itself in a variety of ways, including as through shared infrastructures, governance, small and large businesses, natural abundance, culture, and climate. When it is acknowledged, community members may manage and develop this wealth. Those who are prepared to coordinate their efforts to create well-being for everybody, including non-humans, can revive it even in situations when it has been severely deteriorated. Because this richness is rooted in a community’s personality and spirit rather than its wealth, every community has the opportunity to build it. The question is how to increase their capacity to access and expand this riches in ways that are beneficial to everyone, not just a favored few. The idea that regeneration involves living wholes is a second tenet. 

At its most basic level, this entails a commitment to assisting each and every person in realizing their potential and making significant contributions to society. It also entails giving in to the possibility of other living systems, such as communities and ecosystems. This differs significantly from a strategy that aims to manage a small resource pool and extract value out of them as the foundation of an economy. In order to create a continuously expanding pool of shared wealth, a regenerative economy aims to boost everyone and everything’s capacity to generate value.

Communities conduct economic development initiatives in a variety of contexts around the globe to ensure their long-term well-being. All too frequently, these development initiatives have a variety of detrimental effects, especially on underprivileged or disenfranchised groups. These effects can include uprooting, gentrification, the disintegration of the social or environmental fabric, or the persistence of practices that systematically put women, people of color, as well as other groups in poverty for decades. Some economic development initiatives have the unintended consequence of decreasing community wealth rather than enhancing it.

For instance, the prosperity of Valle de Bravo, a well-liked weekend resort for Mexico City’s wealthiest citizens, has put tremendous strain on the town’s natural and sociocultural systems. Poor farmers and indigenous communities have been forced to sell the agricultural areas they had previously owned collectively in order to make a living from low-wage jobs due to the increasing demand for homes. This change in the use of land from agricultural to urbanization has resulted in a real estate boom for rich developers but has done very little to make life better for rural residents, creating friction in the community. Failures in strategic thinking frequently exacerbate the structural disempowerment of some community groups. For instance, many towns rely on outside experts, best practices, or expensive incentives to entice major corporations rather than investing in their own inherent riches and in-house talent. Even though these imported ideas were successful in the environments in which they were developed, they frequently fail to successfully blend into the fundamental nature of the groups into which they are brought. The entire foundation of their innate wealth is eroded by this.

When programs are developed around particular issues, requirements, agendas, objectives, or funding possibilities, economic development efforts may become fragmented and even ineffective. They produce limited tangible outcomes and fall short of achieving the systemic improvements intended when they are not incorporated into the life and possibilities of the community. Moreover, these initiatives frequently fall short in getting locals to think, care about, and invest in them.

While valuable on some level, initiatives like switching to renewable energy sources, building bike lanes, or emphasizing affordable housing do not by themselves have profound systemic consequences for a community. In the worst instance, such interventions can have a harmful effect on communities because they are frequently reactive and opportunistic. For instance, turning a deserted industrial zone into a bustling business center could increase a city’s tax base and vitality. Yet, it might easily lead to the loss of nearby low-income communities, which could result in their displacement and a reduction in their underlying wealth and potential rather than an increase.