It is a must-read book that we should all read, as we all participate in global economic activity in one way or another. Valuable information is presented by a large number of collaborators, academics, university students, corporate executives and scientists, whose discussions were taking shape in this keen proposal presented by the author.
Although the economy dominates most of the human spheres, however the educational texts of the same have not been updated in 70 years and is based on the theory of 1850, which is destructively impacting society and the planet.
Kate Raworth proposes a new economic theory based on humanity long-term goals, which considers a critical human deprivation, social foundation, ecological ceiling and critical planetary degradation, where one can find a well-being space for humanity and the nature of the planet . She presents this model using the power of visual framing, drawing a diagram representing the jump of the 7 main thought forms of the 20th century towards the new proposals for the 21st century economics. The author bases her theory on an extensive research of diverse cutting-edge currents of thought and progressive and innovative schools, and she presents its convergences to integrate them towards a new economic model, that before the challenging context that we face and our values, serves better to our purposes.
My gratitude to the Publisher and NetGalley for allowing me to review the book

The perspective and ideas in this book are not like a normal boring economics book. If you can think critically, like to evaluate ideas based on their own merits and not just the status quo, and think we all deserve a better world - this is a must-read!

Although the author describes herself as a "renegade economist," she is actually a mainstream socialist economist two centuries behind the times. The book is filled with 21st century jargon like cryptocurrencies and distributive organization and robot dividends, but they are just new words for old ideas. Some ideas are good and some not so much, but none are discussed in light of many decades of experience with them.

The story begins with Malthusian pessimism, although unlike the good reverend, she feels no need to present arguments for it. This is the kind of book that constantly references global ecological disaster, violent conflict, resource depletion, poverty and other ills as if readers need just the cue to summon up overwhelming fears and support for anything that promises alternatives. Like Malthus, the author believes that unrestrained growth inevitably crashes into limits that inflict misery, whether famine, disease, war, environmental destruction or other. Also like Malthus, she thinks the solution is for humans to limit what they want to moderate Christian comforts (although I suspect she would dispute the "Christian" her approved human desires are nearly identical to those of Malthus, as is her naughty list).

Of course, there's a good deal of truth to this view, although history has also shown that it is possible for the market to anticipate limits, raise prices smoothly and engineer unforced transitions to new development paths without great suffering on anyone's part. While that doesn't always work, the alternative of using government force to limit what people can get or do has often led to disaster. For one thing, the people in charge often misunderstand the limits. For another, they're often pursuing their own good rather than everyone's good. Finally, the measures are often ineffective, leading to leaders being replaced by successively more ruthless leaders who also fail, until we get the horrors of the 20th century totalitarian states.

As a result of this history, most people today prefer a mix of market solutions constrained by sensible government regulations. They accept that it won't always work perfectly, or even well, but that the alternatives of all market or all government are worse. But the author simply ignores both the history and theory and airily prescribes what we all get to have, without considering how many kulaks will have to be shot or how many laogai camps will be needed to accomplish her personal vision.

That vision is nearly identical to the utopian socialism of early 19th century writers like Étienne Cabet. Like them, she skips over any need for class struggle or repression to get to her dream, she spends all her time explaining how it will work once we get there. She imagines local communities of happy artisans leading sustainable lives in cooperation with neighbors and enlightened global systems. While there are attractive aspects of that vision, it ignores a lot of messy social reality. For that reason it both inspired a violent reaction in the form of Marxist revolutionary socialism--which was all about messy social reality--and evolved into ethical socialism that relies on moral arguments rather than economic ones. But once again, the author ignores two hundred years of experience and debate, and writes as if she if the first to think of the peaceable kingdom.

The author even reaches back to the 19th century for her enemies, what she calls the "neoliberals." As far as I know, no one calls her or himself a neoliberal economist, it's a term popular among European leftists to mean any economist they dislike. It used to be roughly associated with policies of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, but it seems to have expanded well beyond that. In any event, the author uses the term in a 19th century sense as if she were arguing against Maffeo Pantaleoni and similar proto-fascists.

Although anachronistic, many of the ideas in the book are sound. They have been given a 21st century gloss, but have not been updated to reflect intellectual progress and experience since the end of the 18th century. Their romantic appeal is undercut by a scolding tone. I suspect the book will appeal mostly to people who accept the author's innate pessimism about letting people do what they want, and who imagine that more scolding can settle everyone down into wanting proper things, without need for violence or persuasion.

This is a simple book of enormous density. The author uses visuals, with the "doughnut" front and center center, to convey her plan for transforming 21st century economic theory. The reader is exposed to a large swath of economic theory and history along the way. What might normally be a painful journey into esoteric academia is instead a fascinating look into a new way of envisioning our shared life on this planet.

This is the most important must read since Piketty's "Capital". Raworth spells out in graphic detail what's missing in our misbegotten rush to self destruction, and how we might save ourselves.
Will Watman http://www.cannedsalmonblog.com/