Work area: The Economy We Could Have

Building the economy we could have: Beyond investment to stopping the bad 

A version of this article was originally posted on The Point.

Many policy discussions centre on how to spend more and spend better, patching up after the fact. But this investment framing misses a crucial third pillar of prevention: stopping harmful activities from happening at all or before their impact gets even worse. Check out the latest reflection for our series ‘Building the economy we could have’. 

Gambling advertising is a hot topic in Australia right now, with a range of groups and political players calling for more to be done to stop ads popping up on our screens. 

Taking action to stop an activity known to be causing so much harm to so many Australians and their families is not really in question: the push and pull between the parties is more how much action to take and how firm government needs to be.  

Banning gambling ads is a great example of how important stopping bad things is. Yet it seems to be the exception that proves the rule: so often policy discussions instead swirl around spending to patch up after the fact. It is rare to focus on stopping bad things from happening in the first place. 

Compared to how and how much to spend and on what, far less attention gets paid to avoiding costly repair and remediation, and yet this can be much cheaper than the vast sums of public money spent fixing the damage caused by policies that allow, and sometimes even subsidise, harmful activities.  

There are so many examples. Think about the ‘direct costs from extreme weather events, which are estimated to grow by 5.13 percent each year (before inflation) and reach $35.24 billion (in 2022 dollars) by 2050.’ Or what about the health impacts of pollution in the air from truck and bus exhaust, which costs about $6.2 billion each year. Children at childcare centres on busy roads are exposed to air pollution that is equivalent to eight cigarettes a day, according to scholars at the University of Melbourne. 

In relation to chemical pollutants, the Centre for Policy Development (CPD) reports that if they had ‘been regulated early, the enormous cost of clean-up – and the impacts on human health – could have been prevented’, but now, as the CPD explains, the ‘cost of remediating Australia’s approximately 160,000 contaminated sites is impossible to quantify, but a thorough clean-up would almost certainly amount to hundreds of billions of dollars’. 

And because of child poverty, various Australian governments spend at least $16 billion annually on government services like child protection, health services, legal system costs, homelessness services and education services, and the need for Jobseeker and Family Tax Benefit in later life.  

These costs are illustrations of failure demand: demands on public services and budgets that arise because various systems, institutions, policies, and practices fail to prevent harm in the first place, let alone create the conditions for people and planet to thrive. 

What is needed is upstream prevention that stops problems before they start. This is 3-4 times more cost-effective than treating them later. This is further evidence of the very real fiscal benefits to be obtained from creating an economy that better aligns with what people and planet need. Preventing harm would deliver benefits for communities and the natural world (most importantly), while also reducing avoidable public expenditure: a potential prevention dividend.  

Taking prevention upstream to the economy 

Conversations about prevention tend not to go as far ‘upstream’ as the economy. Yet how the economy operates and for whom matters to people’s ability to thrive, and that of the planet. Going as far upstream as the economy makes it necessary to ask which activities are enabled; who benefits from them; who bears the costs; and how are resources treated and distributed? 

There is ample evidence of the environmental impacts of how we produce and consume, and inequalities within them. The socio-economic determinants of health are not disputed, but what is seldom acknowledged that much social policy is necessary because of economic policy that does not share our wealth and resources effectively.  

Acting on this evidence requires investment spending and early intervention, which is all well and good. But the investment framing misses a crucial third pillar of prevention: stopping harmful activities from happening at all, or before their impact gets even worse. 

Currently, many laws, taxes, and subsidies still permit or actively encourage activities known to cause harm, creating downstream costs for government and society (incidentally, these downstream costs align with the International Monetary Fund’s definition of ‘implicit subsidies’).  

Stopping the bad 

Addressing the fact that our economy actively encourages harm and causes downstream costs would require governments not just focus on adapting to shocks, but become more proactive in stopping the causes of harm in the first place. 

The first task is to identify what is permitted, but which is proven to:  

  1. Damage health, the environment, or economic security 
  1. Shift costs onto the public while profits remain private, or  
  1. Persist only because they are familiar, not because they work. 

Then legislators need to regulate out activities and behaviours that create more harm than good via bans, phase out, tax hikes, subsidy removals, tighter licensing, restrictions and limits, or withdrawing other forms of government support.  

Crucially, this would be accompanied by transition plans and support to avoid unfair burdens or unintended hardship for affected groups. Alongside nurturing the new, the task is to let go of the old and no longer necessary: ‘hospicing the old’ in systems thinking terms. 

Fairness: to individuals and enterprises doing the right thing 

Taking steps to ‘stop the bad’ would shift the onus away from blaming individuals and avoid infamous ‘lifestyle drift’: a phenomenon ‘where policies tend to recognise upstream factors in their rationale but drift downstream to “life-style factors” when recommending action and defining impact measures’.  

It is also about fair competition: if a practice is profitable only because its costs are borne by the public, that’s implicit subsidies, not efficiency nor genius entrepreneurship. 

Already happening 

The biggest quality of life improvements often come not from new spending, but from deciding that certain harmful practices are no longer acceptable.  

Around the world there are examples that show the effectiveness of stopping bad things happening: 

  • New Zealand’s restrictions on zero-hour contracts. 
  • Sao Paulo, Amsterdam, Edinburgh and the Australian Capital Territory are restricting the use of outdoor advertising (either outright or for certain goods, such as SUVs). 
  • Scotland’s smoking ban twenty years ago has seen rapid reductions in heart attacks and respiratory admissions (including reduced admission for child asthma by 18 percent), and healthier workers. 
  • Asbestos is banned in new buildings in many countries. 
  • Brazil’s “Dirty List” of firms using forced labour. 
  • France has banned short haul flights for journeys where there are suitable alternative train options. 
  • Wales has a moratorium on building major new roads. 

Conclusion

If efforts to stop the bad were to become more deliberate than simply sporadic, debate would move from the Treasurer’s calculator to the auditor’s assessment, and ultimately to the legislator’s pen. We’d spend less time and money fixing preventable damage, and more time building an economy that doesn’t create the damage in the first place. The gambling advertising debate shows that when the case is clear enough, stopping the harm becomes common sense. Imagine if we applied that same common sense across the board.

The ideas that have informed this piece were first mooted at an event hosted by NESTA Scotland at the Edinburgh Futures Institute in early 2026. 

Check out our series, ‘Building the economy we could have’ for more. 

Building the economy we could have: Interview with Neighbourhood Economics  

The economic development framework, Community Wealth Building, is receiving increasing attention worldwide after Scotland passed a law that brings the framework to a whole country and our last instalment of ‘Building the economy we could have’ explored the history of the concept and how it works (See our explainer here). To better understand what it looks like in practice for Australia, The Next Economy’s Economic Change Project Officer Josie Foster sat down with Annie Smits and Bill Mithen, Co-CEOs of Neighbourhood Economics to discuss how they’re applying the framework to Norlane and Corio in Victoria.  

Their motto? A fair economy isn’t impossible, it’s overdue. 

Josie from TNE and Annie and Bill from Neighbourhood Economics

What is Neighborhood Economics all about?  

Annie: Neighborhood Economics is committed to places of disadvantage and thinking about those places and re-imagining those places through an economic lens. Part of our theory sits in the idea that places of disadvantage often get looked at through a health lens, or an education lens, or a services lens, but rarely through an economic lens, and if we don’t think about local economies, we won’t shift the conditions of places like Norlane and Corio, which is where we’re working, 

Why did you pick Norlane and Corio as the location to pilot Neighborhood Economics? 

Bill: Norlane is the most disadvantaged place in the state for Victoria, and Corio is the fourth most. I’ve worked in Geelong for a long time, it’s where I grew up, and I currently live. We both worked in places where disadvantage is prevalent and have seen that things in places of entrenched disadvantage just don’t shift, it doesn’t matter the amount of capital or labour or time or effort that people put in, the conditions stay the same.  

Norlane and Corio are two of those places. There’s also been a significant amount of work done in Geelong on entrenched disadvantage, so we feel like starting in a place where the preconditions are already set and organised, made sense. 

Can you tell us about the industrial history of Norlane and Corio? 

Bill: Norlane and Corio have a story that is similar to lots of places that have been left behind, where they powered the industrial transformation of the Australian economy and the manufacturing part of the Australian economy, and as that has changed over time to become a more services-based economy, these places have often been left behind. They were typically working-class places that had – in Norlane and Corio’s circumstance – large manufacturers; Ford being one. There’s an oil refinery that still exists in Corio [and] International Harvester had their head office there too.  

Going back a bit further, there was a whisky distillery as well. There were big manufacturing organisations and businesses that employed lots of people. And as globalisation came in, as trade conditions changed within nations, and tariffs shifted, as a country we really became unviable in those industries, and so they shut down. This meant a whole heap of jobs left with them, and the nature and identity of those suburbs changed forever. 

What drew you to Community Wealth Building? 

Annie: Community Wealth Building is a practical economic development framework that has five levers that can be pulled to shift the economy in a place. The reason we go to the economy is because fundamentally the economy is the starting point of disadvantage and inequality, and if we don’t start at that place, we won’t get to actually shift the conditions of a place. We’ll do good things for people or with people, but people will remain locked in or locked out of participation in an economy and continue to be left behind.  

Bill: The levers are essentially; land, labour, ownership, finance and procurement. So that’s using land for local benefit, having a finance system that supports local institutions and local organisations, doing more socially beneficial procurement, having greater plurality or democratic ownership and having a just labour market.  

Annie: One of the other things within Neighbourhood Economics that Bill and I talk about all the time is what we call “our matters” – the things that matter in economic development that have been left out of how we talk about local economies. They are democratic ownership, shared value, distributed power, and human connection.  

Democratic ownership is important because if we don’t go to the heart of ownership – who owns what and how wealth is concentrated – we will never push back on this sense of extraction and wealth accumulation.  

Shared value goes to this sense of whoever creates value in the system is rewarded at that place, including the environment and First Peoples. Distributed power, which sits right alongside democratic ownership, is how do we distribute power and decision making differently and closer to the action or the people. Then human connection – if we’re well connected as human beings and see ourselves in the other, it’s less likely that I’m going to extract from you or take from you in inappropriate ways. 

How has this idea been received in the local area? 

Bill: We’ve just released a suite of reports, and in the production of those we’ve talked to lots of people. We talked to just under 20 business owners in Norlane and Corio, from very small corner shops and retail stores to large manufacturing businesses. We’ve spoken with nine “anchor” institutions – these are larger organisations that have economic power and can really control the economic trajectory of a place. We sat down and interviewed nine CEOs of those organisations, and then we also had these kitchen table conversations with about 40 odd residents of Norlane and Corio to really understand what life’s like and how the economy actually works and what they experience in the day-to-day life. 

Community Wealth Building is not necessarily new for Geelong, because there’ve been organisations and people have talked about it for a little while, although it’s having a bit of a moment. There is a good sense of goodwill from those bigger organisations and civic and business leaders to try and do something, and this is another reason why we chose Norlane and Corio. What they’re not sure about is what to do and so to have a framework that is different – and there’s an acknowledgement that we have to do something different – that has got some proven capability internationally, there’s a bit of interest and excitement about that. Harnessing that and turning intention into action is going to be part of our trajectory. 

Who is responsible for making community wealth building happen? 

Annie: All levels of government, but it can’t be left to just one. What we’re finding is that there’s lone voices within government that are supportive, and that will hopefully grow momentum. At all levels of government, there is conversation around the fact that we need to shift things around how our economy functions. Sometimes other groups are using the term “wellbeing economy”, which is not exactly the same, but it’s parallel and heading in the same direction.  

Bill: The connection with the wellbeing economy is important. The way I articulate it or see it is that a wellbeing economy is the thing we need. We need an economy that places wellbeing at the centre. How you do that is through using the framework of community wealth building. There is more to it than that, but that’s one of the reasons why we chose Community Wealth Building, because it’s really practical.  

Annie: We would say also that there’s this sense at all levels of government it can’t just be left to local councils, it can’t just be left to federal government, it can’t just be left to state government, and it’s not just Treasury, or it’s not just the Premier’s office. It’s got to be across government that there’s a buy-in on this, and it’s really interesting that, like, in Victoria, for example, that the Victorian Department of Health and VicHealth have really led the conversation around wellbeing and the connection of wellbeing and economy and a healthy functioning economy. So, this doesn’t just sit with Treasury, or with the economic and finance people; it sits right across government and at all levels of government and other places as well. 

What are you hearing from some of the people who may have been left behind economically? 

Bill: A range of things. Mostly ambition. The people we spoke to want all the same things that we all want. There were stories of neighbours connecting with each other and helping each other and supporting each other. There were stories of regeneration and people finding a place to be in Norlane and Corio that was really helpful to them. But there were also heaps of other stories that aren’t anywhere near as positive. These were about the difficulties of unemployment and the fact that systems – disability, employment, health, housing or otherwise – almost feel like they’re actively working against their well-being rather than trying to support them. But people were incredibly grateful to be heard, which was humbling. 

What would you like to see happen to bring community wealth building to areas in Australia?  

Bill: Community Wealth Building is still relatively unknown, which is a challenge, so the more people that know about it the better. One of the things we talk about is: what stopped Community Wealth Building from becoming either the dominant or a dominant practice of economic development? What are the barriers to it? Probably the biggest barrier is the status quo of power. How you break and shift that is really difficult. But people knowing about it, what it is and what it isn’t, is really important. People seeing that it actually is an economic development framework that is legitimate and reasonable, and can work, and is able to be used to build people’s wealth and their wellbeing is really important that it’s not just a fringe idea. It can be done by mainstream economic development. It’s just a choice. 

And your final thoughts? 

Bill: The big thing about Community Wealth Building for me at the moment is that it’s so much more than three words that you put in a sentence, even though that’s how many people will understand it. It’s actually an economic development framework that has five levers that you need to pull and shift and change all at the same time. There’s a lot of work in it, and we will do ourselves a great disservice if we don’t hold ourselves true and focus on exactly what it is. 

Annie: I agree. For Bill and I in creating Neighbourhood Economics, part of our frustration was that both of us had done a fair amount of work in economic development, and we probably potentially worked in one, a single lever, but then found the frustration of ‘why hasn’t this shifted something’, and so the really important piece is that we’re pulling multiple levers to reimagine local economies. 

Find out more and about Neighbourhood Economics: https://neighbourhoodeconomics.org.au/  

Check out our series, ‘Building the economy we could have’ for more. 

Building the economy we could have: Community Wealth Building

This instalment of ‘Building the economy we could have’ explores Community Wealth Building and how this approach can bring health and social benefits while building resilient communities to better weather turbulent times. 

A decade ago, one in twenty Australians rated their life satisfaction as very low. Today it’s one in ten: nearly 2.2 million people now living below what statisticians call the “wellbeing poverty line. It happened while the economy, by its official scorecard, kept growing. But growing for who? 

It’s clear Australians want healthy and thriving local economies that work for people and our environment, not profit alone and a different approach is needed to make sure wealth is shared and kept locally.  

It’s in this environment that the economic development strategy of Community Wealth Building has started attracting increasing interest. But what is it? And what can it offer us here in Australia?  

What is Community Wealth Building? 

Community Wealth Building is an alternative to the trickle-down assumptions of a growth-first model of economic development. It puts people at the centre of the decisions made, with a focus on predistribution of wealth, ownership and resources, making sure it is designed from the start to genuinely work for people and provide long-term, lasting changes in the economy, addressing the root causes of inequality and poverty (See Predistribution). 

There are five main pillars that guide Community Wealth Building:  

  • Progressive procurement of goods and services 💸 (Spending): Using anchor institutions, such as local government and big employers like hospitals, universities and other public institutions, to harness their procurement to bolster local supply chains and support local business development, spending, and investment. 
  • Fair employment and just labour markets 👷‍♀️(Workforce): Using these same anchor institutions and worker-owned cooperatives to ensure employment practices and wages are fair, pay a living wage and create more opportunities for equitable and local economic participation and control over work. 
  • Socially productive use of land and property 🏡(Land and property): Public land and property assets are used to create shared wealth for people, bringing local land and development under community control. 
  • Making financial power work for local places 🏦 (Finance): Wealth and savings are harnessed and reinvested for the local community using public and community banks and credit unions as well as targeting superannuation investments. 
  • Plural ownership of the economy ♻️ (Inclusive ownership): The promotion of different business ownership models to build wealth for local communities, such as cooperatives, social enterprises, public ownership.  

History 

Community Wealth Building emerged as an economic development model in 2005, through the work of The Democracy Collaborative, who describe themselves as an ‘Action-oriented Think-Do Tank’ in Cleveland, USA and in the work of The Centre for Local Economic Strategies (CLES) in the UK.  

Community Wealth Building came about from the desire to create economic democracy and a path forward that built fairness into the model of our economic system, inspired by the Civil Rights movement and the New Deal in the US as well as successful worker cooperatives such as Mondragon Corporation in Spain. 

The Cleveland and Preston models 

In 2008, Evergreen Cooperatives was set up to bring Community Wealth Building from concept to reality in Cleveland, with Evergreen’s founders and local ‘anchor institutions’ helping to set up worker-owned cooperatives with the aim of creating high-quality jobs, making neighbourhoods vibrant and sharing economic ownership with the community.  

Evergreen acquired small and mid-sized businesses, converting them to employee ownership, creating living wage jobs, training new employee owners and then providing ongoing business support to the worker cooperative. Evergreen Coops now include a commercial laundry, insulation services and a coffee roastery and cafes. 

Across the Atlantic in the north of England, following the Global Financial Crisis of 2007/2008, Preston Council was facing severe cuts to the budget after the loss of over a billion pounds in government grants. The business-as-usual approach would have been to slash council services and supports, pushing more people into poverty and economic disadvantage without doing anything to support people to have employment and options for good quality jobs.  

However, a Preston City Council representative attended an event in London with The Democracy Collaborative and one of their co-founders, Ted Howard. Ted was then invited to Preston to discuss Community Wealth Building, and from there, Preston worked to implement the pillars of Community Wealth Building via local anchor institutions.  

In 2025, they celebrated ten years of the ‘Preston Model’, with outcomes that clearly demonstrated how aligning the economy with local need can be a mechanism to deal with other problems such as mental health, life satisfaction and wages. 

In fact, The Lancet, the world-renowned medical journal, studied the model and found a reduced prevalence of depression, lowered antidepressant prescriptions, and improved life satisfaction. Plus, it raised the median wage 11 percent!   

Preston proves something that most of us would have an idea about already: that a thriving local economy that keeps wealth flowing in the community provides economic improvements as well as health and wider societal benefits.  

It also proves that an approach to mental health without addressing some of the root causes, such as economic insecurity and poverty, will simply be treating the symptoms, allowing the problems to continue (See Lifestyle Drift, The Economy We Could Have, Upstream Briefing) 

Scotland brings the idea to life across a whole country 

Scotland has recently passed a groundbreaking piece of legislation that introduces the benefits of Community Wealth Building across an entire country. The Community Wealth Building Act requires Ministers to publish a Community Wealth Building statement setting out the measures they intend to take to implement the pillars. Across Scotland, local authorities (local governments) will work with relevant public bodies to create and implement action plans for their area.  

Neil McInroy, a leading expert working with CLES and The Democracy Collective who has also been an advisor to the Scottish Government on Community Wealth Building, states that the power of this is that it moves Community Wealth Building from something that is optional or opt-in, to something that is system-wide. 

What is the potential for Australia? 

Many regions in Australia are starting to ask how they can look at economic development differently, including those in which we have worked such as Hay in NSW and south west Queensland. The economic blueprint we worked on with the South West Queensland Regional Organisation of Councils, includes a possible first Community Wealth Building step: meeting with key anchor institutions in Roma to identify spending or contracts they could commit to prioritising local suppliers or First Nations organisations. 

In Geelong, Annie Smits and Bill Mithen from Neighbourhood Economics are working to bring the concept to life in a place hit hard by previous waves of economic change where resources left. Norlane and Corio, two suburbs of Geelong, were once home to the Ford factory and auto industry, and today are two of the most disadvantaged communities in Australia.  

Neighbourhood Economics joined with SGS Economics & Planning to launch a suite of new reports in May this year, including Community Wealth Building: What will it take? This report explores what’s standing in the way of adopting Community Wealth Building as a model of local economic development in Australia. 

Other Australian Community Wealth Building activity includes: 

  • The City of Sydney, which released a discussion paper at the end of 2021 as a first step in the policy development process 
  • SGS Economics & Planning prepared a working paper on how Community Wealth Building could benefit Melbourne’s eastern region or the Victorian Government and the Eastern Region Group of Councils in 2024. 

Our next instalment in this series will be an interview with Bill and Annie from Neighbourhood Economics on their work in Geelong and what is needed to bring Community Wealth Building to life in Australia.  

Check out our series, ‘Building the economy we could have’ for more. 

Building the economy we could have: Nightingale Housing

To build the economy we could have in Australia, changes must be made to the housing market as access to and ownership of housing is a huge driver of inequality. Currently the way the housing system operates seems to be a far cry from one designed to provide housing that is socially and environmentally friendly, at affordable or accessible prices. Instead, Australia has become a place where ‘investors’ look to make a profit. 

Melbourne’s Nightingale Housing offers a different model. As a not-for-profit, Nightingale doesn’t add a profit margin, delivering homes ‘at cost’.  Apartments are sold not to investors, but to residents and housing providers, and caps are set on resale prices. One-fifth of apartments are prioritised for key workers, people with disabilities, First Nations people, and single women. 

They also have a focus on minimising resource use and building strong community ties. Social connection is fostered via shared spaces, such as rooftop gardens, BBQs, and laundries. Recycled, natural, and local materials are used where possible, with energy-efficient features, like double glazing and insulation. Rooftop solar and water harvesting support the gardens, while the complex includes bike parking and are deliberately based near public transport to avoid the need for a car.

Our Economic Change Project Officer Josie toured one of the Nightingale apartments in Brunswick, then sat down with Toby Dean, the Head of Community at Nightingale Housing.  

Toby works to ensure there are foundations for friendly relationships with existing and future residents. He also focuses on engagement with Community Housing Providers to help more people access to quality and secure housing. The conversation covered what Nightingale does and changes we need in the housing market in Australia to build the economy we could have.

Our Economic Change officer Josie, touring Nightingale
The interior of a 2 bedroom apartment
Integration is a priority, with plants and trees planted and cafes and retail.

Can you tell me a little bit about who Nightingale is and what you are trying to do? 

We’re a developer, essentially, so we operate in a system that’s primarily driven by profit, but we’re a registered charity and a not-for-profit. We buy blocks of land and build housing that puts community and environment first. 

What are some of the ways that you put community and environment first? 

At the core of our project, we typically sell to owner occupiers, we sell at cost, and we sell a portion of our building to community housing providers to have affordable housing mixed into the building. We care about everyone that’s living in the community, and we hope it’s a mix. We typically build small footprint homes, which is one of the first steps to a more sustainable living system, to have smaller homes and more efficient homes as well, with things like solar panels, 100% green power, and well insulated. 

 What are the sorts of ways that Nightingale aims to create more of a connection between neighbours? 

In a typical Nightingale apartment building, there are studios, and one-, two-, or three-bedroom apartments, and then on top of that, there are shared spaces that are designed to have both a practical function and a community driven function. So, bike parking, laundries, sometimes a guest house, a bath house, and rooftop garden spaces. All those areas are designed for people to do their washing or to garden, but also to get to know their neighbours and share resources as well. 

Bathhouse that can be booked by residents
Communal bike parking
Shared play area for children

Where are the Nightingale projects? There are lots around Brunswick in Melbourne, but where else? 

We have a rental project in Sydney, projects in Fremantle, Adelaide, Ballarat, Melbourne. Our next few projects are local, one in Preston [Melbourne]. We’re also continuing to do some townhouse projects in Alphington and other suburbs. We hope to do another project in Adelaide, and then it’s uncertain what will happen after that. 

We are Melbourne-focused but hope to expand that out, not only to capital cities, but typically we target areas that have good transport infrastructure, so that people can live without a car, like Wollongong or Newcastle. We aim to build close to public transport, close to amenities, and close to things like schools and education and jobs and infrastructure as well. 

What are the things that are core to Nightingale?

We always use 100% green power, we prioritise shared spaces, good internet, sustainable buildings. And then on car parking; we just don’t believe we’re in a car parking crisis, we’re in a housing crisis, and for us to build homes and then add a private car park onto it, it adds a considerable cost. For us, we think the biggest barrier is getting people into home ownership. 

What do you think is the hardest thing about being a developer in the housing market that we have in Australia? What are the barriers that Nightingale faces? 

I think it’s always tricky to challenge the status quo. Typically, development is a profit-driven industry, which we’re obviously kind of sitting outside of that. 

We want our buildings to perform well, and for it to be sustainable financially and environmentally, but it is tricky. There’s limited access to concessional finance in Australia, and there are a lot of barriers that can make development tricky. And construction costs are expensive, land is expensive.  

Have things gotten easier or harder since you’ve started in 2013? 

I think it’s probably been a mix. We’re still a small organization, there’s only five or six people that work here full time, and we’ve been through the ups and downs of the development industry. I think in some ways it’s got easier, people know who we are, people understand what we’re trying to do. There’s also been a big shift in planning laws that encourage medium-density or high-density developments and understand that not every home has to have a car. We’ve got past some of those battles. I think conversely, construction costs have increased so that it’s hard to build homes that people can afford to buy. You can build luxury apartments, but to build apartments at cost, typically for first home buyers, it’s gotten expensive.  

Absolutely, and when you’re in inner city suburbs as well, where the median house price is high, “affordable” for the area, might not be affordable for a lot of people. 

Yes. And “affordable” is a tough metric. There are proper definitions of it, but I think it’s more important for a home to be affordable on a person’s income rather than relative to market, which is what some people use. 

Diverse spaces built in like art studios and a meditation centre
Grassy rooftop area for sitting
Veggie gardens on the roof and BBQ space

Do you see the not-for-profit developer space getting better in Australia, or do you see a lot of examples of ‘ethical washing’?  

I think it’s gone both ways. There has been a shift to appreciate good development, and to appreciate good density, with the rise of kind of the YIMBY movement, and the changes to planning laws, and everything like that, which encourage development. I think, conversely, there’s still a lot of poor development, or density that’s not appropriate for the place. I think the general population now have greater expectation around sustainability requirements, about insulation, about acoustics, and comfort, and non-flammable cladding. 

What else has changed for the better since you first started out? 

The building codes have changed for the better, the energy requirements have changed for better. I think in general, we’re moving in a better direction, I just wish people would be more concerned about sustainability, affordability, and making respectful places to live where people enjoy living there. I also live in a Nightingale project, you get to know your neighbours, you feel cared for, and there’s a sense of connection that is important. 

What do you think about the situation in general in housing in Australia?  

I think it’s about acknowledging that it is tough for a lot of people; for renters, for first home buyers, even for those downsizing. I think that a lot of Australians are kind of wary or cautious of change, but I think it’s important to acknowledge that you can make changes in the housing system. Nightingale still finds it difficult, we’re not just cruising through as an organisation, things aren’t easy. I wish we had greater access to concessional finance and there were more not-for-profit developers operating in our space, so we weren’t one of the few.  

What do you see needing to change from a government approach? 

People talk about housing affordability, I think that’s a good term, but it’s relatively abstract for a lot of people. I think that housing in Australia is too expensive, and the cost of housing needs to decrease, or our wages need to increase. I think that the recent changes by the federal government were supportive.  

The changes to capital gains tax, and other changes that they’re bringing forward, I think are positive. I think that they will see housing perhaps get closer to wage growth, not increase as exponentially as it has, and for property not to be seen or viewed as a tool for wealth creation. We always wish for more, but I’m super appreciative of those changes. I think it was brave to do some potentially not popular decisions.  

I think there needs to be a strengthening of tenancy laws, for renters and anyone out there in the housing market, and I think there should be support for first home buyers. I also wish there was an increase in public and community housing funding. 

Thanks for your time, Toby. And thanks for showing me around! 

 Thanks for coming. It’s nice to share with people what we do here at Nightingale Housing! 

Head to www.nightingalehousing.org for more information.

Check out our series, ‘Building the economy we could have’ for more case studies, explainers and interviews that show what is possible in Australia.

Internal garden for cooling and greenery
Rooftop garden to allow access to greenspace
Internal garden for cooling and greenery

Building the economy we could have: Beyond ‘Lifestyle Drift’  

Overview:  

  • Too much focus on individual action and change puts responsibility for change at the feet of individuals, as if they were separate and not touched by the wider dynamics wrought by policy and economic dynamics. 
  • In public health this is called ‘lifestyle drift’.  
  • This lets the economy – and those who shape it – off the hook, while individuals bear the brunt of wider economic trends.  
  • Rather than blaming individuals for ‘wilting’ when the conditions around them don’t enable them to thrive, it is those economic trends are where change is most urgent: including decent work; businesses that harness profitability is a means, rather than a goal in its own right; and economic activity generated from the local up via community wealth building. 

The economy is a major upstream cause of many of the problems Australians face downstream. The economy creates the causes that compel certain behaviours, invoke certain reactions, and deliver harmful impacts.  

Yet often the emphasis of policies and programs is choices and changes individuals needs to make. In the public health sphere, this shift in emphasis from the wider context to individual lifestyle choices has been referred to as ‘lifestyle drift’. Here Dr Katherine Trebeck shares her thoughts on the need to move beyond it. 

What lifestyle drift means 

Firstly, let’s look at what lifestyle drift actually means. It’s a term used by public health scholars and, as you may have suspected, it’s not as fun as it might sound. It’s what happens when those designing policies might understand the external conditions (upstream factors) that drive health inequalities, such as the quality of work and access to decent housing. However, when it comes to action, the focus drifts downstream to questions of lifestyle, where the individual is in the frame, rather than the economy.  

Another way to think about the problem with such an approach is ‘wilting-plant-syndrome’, a concept described by poet and clinical psychologist Dr Sanah Ahsan.

Ahsan wrote: ‘If a plant were wilting, we wouldn’t diagnose it with “wilting-plant-syndrome”; we would change its conditions’. 

‘Wilting-plant-syndrome’ is seen all too often in policy and economic thinking today, where downstream individual action is seen as the problem, not the wider conditions causing the problems. The consequence of the thinking inherent in both lifestyle drift and wilting-plant-syndrome is that the onus of action is placed on individuals, as if they were separate and not touched by the wider dynamics wrought by policy and economic systems. 

What lifestyle drift looks like 

Health is an area where it is hard to avoid seeing the lifestyle drift phenomenon play out.  

As Kriznnik et al say ‘the main assumptions underpinning interventions to address health inequalities … remain focussed on individual responsibility’. For example, when people are struggling with their mental health, they are offered therapy or antidepressants. This might help someone manage, but it won’t address the challenges they face in their lives such as poverty, a hostile workplace, the stress of being unable to pay bills, or the anxiety of precarious housing. You can see a focus on individual action in a recent briefing about tackling obesity, where the suggested changes mostly revolved around mechanisms that supported or compelled individuals to act differently. 

Lifestyle drift is also evident in a 2025 Australian Productivity Commission report calling for a National Prevention Investment Strategy. In all 95 pages of the report, the word “poverty” appeared only twice (once in a reference), and the word “inequality” only three times. To its credit, its list of primary prevention measures included economic support for families (while important, arguably transfers are also an after-the-fact response downstream). But in the same vein, it also described parenting education (where the onus is on the individual parents to change). 

We Aussies aren’t the only ones at risk of wilting plant syndrome and lifestyle drift:  

  • A few years ago, the World Health Organisation published a list of ‘best buy’ interventions on non-communicable disease, which positioned the individual as the unit where change needs to happen (through education, taxes on unhealthy food etc). Poverty was mentioned only in passing and inequality ostensibly ignored. 

These individualised framings cut through. For example, poor diets are often attributed to bad individual choices. Research found that in the UK Victorian-era notions of deserving and undeserving poor prevail, with the researcher observing that some providers of foodbanks depicted food charity as a ‘choice’, seeming to endorse ‘the classic deserving/undeserving divide while individualising food insecurity and obscuring the systemic issues’. 

Shifting the blame for environmental harm 

Shifting of responsibility to individuals, often by large corporations, is rife in environmental issues, from litter to the concept of a personal ‘carbon footprint’. For example: 

  • An ad launched in the US a few years ago showed an actor canoeing through polluted water, then walking toward a highway, only to see someone throwing rubbish out of their car window. The end of the ad states that ‘People start pollution. People can stop it’. This was part of the Keep America Beautiful campaign, an initiative designed and funded by packaging business, such as American Can Co, Owens-Illinois Glass Co, Coca-Cola and Dixie Cup.  

How lifestyle drift dodges the real issue 

The problem with all this focus on individuals is that overly emphasising individual action lets the real culprit off the hook: the economic system itself and the rules and players within it that create a misalignment with what people and planet need. It ignores the political decisions and deep-seated assumptions that have carved out the shape of the economy of today.  

As scholars writing in the Lancet conclude, individualised framing absolves corporations and government of blame. It serves to ‘effectively [neutralise] the effects of social context and airbrushes out of the picture a number of important contextual agents and institutions—specifically the state, markets and industry’. 

Well-known epidemiologist Professor Michael Marmot and colleagues warn that: 

an ‘individualistic approach to health … is a convenient mechanism for those in and with power, and wider society, to abrogate responsibility for creating the conditions for a healthy society’.  

Time to put the spotlight on the economy 

The reality is that it is the economy that drives many of the challenges Australia confronts today, from people’s sense of grievance and lack of hope for the future to species loss; from homelessness to increasingly chaotic weather. The economy is a major upstream cause of the many problems Australians face downstream. The economy creates the causes that compel certain behaviours, invoke certain reactions, and generate harmful impacts. 

Take the unhealthy behaviours, such as lack of exercise or reaching for processed food. Many are not so much a matter of free choice, but options taken when agency is bounded and curtailed. Sometimes people simply do not have the extent of autonomy and choice that the prevailing economic discourse, with its emphasis on individuals maximising their own self-interest, might imply.  

‘Causes of the causes’ is how Professor Michael Marmot describes the social pressures that drive harmful behaviours: such as reduced physical activity due to safety concerns, or stress leading to smoking or overeating.  

A leading authority on the social and economic determinants of health, Professor Sharon Friel, documents the various evidence of how and to what extent the economy matters to health. Socio-economic inequalities are critical factors: it was recently reported by health scholars Dr Sarah Hill and Dr Edward Jegasothy that one-fifth of ill-health in Australia could be avoided if everyone had the same socio-economic conditions as the top 20 per cent. 

So, where to from here? 

The story that needs to be told is how many economic policies are deepening inequality, and how deliberate policy choices – like tax concessions for the wealthy, weakened unions, and the emergence of precarious work – have shifted wealth upward and eroded protection for workers, while increasing insecurity and instability for many.  

When policy and decision makers are discussing outcomes, they need to take account of how market logic and profit motives have reshaped access to basic needs in areas such as housing, education, and often health and care provision. This transfers risk from institutions to individuals and undermines collective support, and spurs an understandable response: people turning to personal insurance for support when sick and to their homes and share markets to provide a decent livelihood in their old age. 

Conclusion: what would be better? 

‘An indigenous analysis of the same thing would look more at the context to try and find out what actually happened’ – Tyson Yunkaporta, Indigenous scholar 

The alternative to lifestyle drift and wilting plant syndrome is looking upstream to how the economy operates: the terrain of jobs, what sort of work is paid for, ownership of firms, costs of goods and services, and provision of core services. Instead of just instructing and coaxing individuals to change, it means turning to the realm of the economy as a critical arena for prevention. It is the economy where risks such as poverty, precarious work, and homelessness, can be truly addressed, as opposed to simply patched up. 

The economy we could have means implementing policy instruments that ensure, for example:  

  • People are paid enough, have job security and conditions that support a healthy life 
  • Profitability is a means, rather than a goal in its own right  
  • Economic activity is generated from the local up via community wealth building, rather than hoping in vain for it to trickle down  
  • Basic needs such as food, shelter, education, and health care are affordable 
  • Sources of unearned wealth, such as inheritance and rent and land values, are taxed more than income 
  • Economic activities which make money from people’s struggles or profit as a result of doing harm to the planet are, if not banned, at least minimised  
  • Prices of goods and services reflect their true cost in terms of what it took to make them, both in environmental terms and via people involved being compensated for their efforts  
  • Success is measured in ways that reflect what people and planet need. 

The economy we could have means grappling with the purpose, design, and delivery of the economy and resisting lifestyle drift.  

Fortunately, there is no shortage of ideas and practices that show what is possible.  

Check out our series, ‘Building the economy we could have’ for more.

Announcing: Erinch Sahan’s Australian tour in partnership with The Next Economy

At The Next Economy, we are excited to team up with Erinch Sahan for his Australian tour to share ideas, provocations, and proof of what is possible in the world of business and investment.  

Businesses and investment matter in Australia. They have a significant role in shaping economic, ecological, and social outcomes – for good, and sometimes for ill. So how can business and investment ensure that their activities and ways of working contribute to an Australia that future generations will be proud of?  

Erinch is a globally renowned thought leader with expertise in business design and investment. Join us to hear from Erinch and widen the discussion about the critical role of business and investment in building the economy we could have.  

Who is Erinch Sahan? 

Growing up in Sydney in the 1980s and 1990s to Turkish immigrant parents, he began his professional life in the corporate sector, and from there, has increasingly focused on making businesses a positive force in the world.  

His experience is varied: he has been CEO of the World Fair Trade Organization, a senior associate at the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership, and recently the Business and Enterprise Lead at Doughnut Economics Action Lab. He is currently leading the investment portfolio at the UK’s Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF), driving its move to mission-related investing.   

TNE’s Economic Change Program Director, Dr Katherine Trebeck, has worked with Erinch over the years and is constantly inspired by his ability to question what business can do and how it needs to change to enhance its positive impact. She describes him as “not just one of the boldest thinkers in business design, but someone who shares incredible case studies and stories of innovative business leaders delivering tangible impact”.   

Find out more about Erinch: 

👂Listen to Erinch’s episode on the BBC’s Bottom Line – Decisions That Made Me: https://www.bbc.com/audio/play/p0l7c12y

👀 Watch Erinch’s latest TEDxPrague:

Get involved!  

These are the public facing events in the works. We will be updating this as we get closer to the dates so subscribe to our newsletter for updates, and follow our LinkedIn and Instagram so you don’t miss out!

Melbourne:  

Transforming Business and Investment into a force for good. Erinch Sahan, with special guests from Regen Melbourne and Social Traders.

📅 Date: Tuesday 6th of October, early evening

📍 Location Greater Melbourne Foundation Hub

🌍 Hosted by: The Next Economy and Greater Melbourne Foundation

🎟 Tickets:  Event page and tickets coming early August!

Canberra:  

Redesigning business and finance to unlock economic transformations: Australian National University Saving the World Webinar.

📅 Date:  Thursday 8th of October, 12.30pm-1.30pm  

📍 Location: Online webinar

🎟 Tickets: Register here. 

Sydney: 

What would business look like if it worked for everyone?

📅 Date:  Wednesday 14th of October, 6pm-8pm

📍 Location: Yirranma Place, Darlinghurst

🌍 Hosted by: The Next Economy and Paul Ramsay Foundation

🎟 Tickets: Coming in August!

This trip is generously supported by WWF, Paul Ramsay Foundation, and Greater Melbourne Foundation. 

If you would like to support this trip or find out more about events, please email j.foster@nexteconomy.com.au  

Building the economy we could have: Predistribution

To build the better economy we could have in Australia, we need to think differently. Dr Katherine Trebeck, economist and Economic Change lead, is a big fan of predistribution. Here she explains why. 

I often use a ‘jigsaw puzzle’ as a metaphor to explain the array of shifts in policy and practice needed to build an economy in service of people and planet. No single piece is sufficient on its own, but together, enough changes have potential to build towards to an economic system that gets things right for people and planet first time around. 

To grapple with this array of actions, it can help to loosely cluster the pieces into the four corners of that jigsaw puzzle: the ‘4Ps’ of purpose, prevention, predistribution, and people power. 

Here, I want to offer a few notes on the predistribution corner as it is so often missing from the conversation about the economy, with focus instead on taxation and how to better fund programs for those who are impacted by the inequalities built into our current system (‘compensating the losers’ as a report from a US think tank rather bluntly puts it). 

Australia used to do fairly well in terms of predistribution (that is, for white, able-bodied males). But no longer; we’ve become an ‘assetocracy’ where access to assets tends to be what shapes peoples’ life chances and life choices.

Credit: Jess Harwood, for The Next Economy

Predistribution is about pre-emption and prevention, and a critical element of upstream change that builds a better economy for all of us.  

‘It is not enough to…try to balance the inequalities generated in the market through retrospective tax and transfer. It is necessary to transform and democratise the institutional content of the market economy, rather than just compensate for its inequalities.’ – Gabriella Ramos et al 

Origin story 

The term predistribution was coined by the American scholar Jacob Hacker who describes it as ‘market reforms that encourage a more equal distribution of economic power and rewards even before government collects taxes or pays out benefits’.  

Predistribution’s political moment in the sun came in 2011 when Ed Miliband, then leader of the UK opposition Labour party, was in the audience for a speech that Hacker gave in Oslo. Miliband returned to the UK and – briefly – championed the idea. 

But predistribution is one of the most important ideas that should be high on the political agenda. Let’s look at why it matters, what it is, how it plays out in practice, and the implications for policy. 

What does predistribution mean? 

The essence of the idea of predistribution is ensuring that the market economy does more of the heavy lifting in delivering a more balanced divvying-up of resources. British scholar Martin O’Neill explains it as ‘the particular ways in which the economy can be shaped to disempower the privileged and to empower the disadvantaged’. Its focus is on market mechanisms that determine the distribution of wages, profits, and other flows and stocks of money.  

Government comes into the predistribution story via its role in creating and shaping markets so that the results are aligned with public goals: using rules, incentives and other levers to shape market outcomes. This includes boosting (or curtailing) the bargaining power of market players such as workers, employers, and wealth holders.  

Therefore, it differs from government using tax and benefits to shape the distribution of economic resources after market outcomes have emerged: this is redistribution.  

We’ll come to some specifics in a moment, but you could expect to see predistribution in the form of:  

  • Strong standards for workers (such as regulation, procurement, support for unions, and living wages). 
  • Regulation of the financial system and corporate governance; including provisions to stop harmful activities.  
  • Ensuring more people have a share of capital ownership, including owning businesses via worker or commubity cooperatives. 
  • Spending to bolster people’s opportunities and bargaining power in the labour market (think education and other public services: so they are not dependent on someone’s income) and groups like unions who can stand up for workers. 
  • Addressing how affordable certain goods and services are (for example, via price caps, subsidies, or direct provision): rather than only focusing on how much money is in people’s pockets; also being concerned with how far it stretches. 

Why it matters 

Inequality arises in and can be addressed via two realms. Firstly, what is sometimes called the ‘primary’ realm of work, wages and occupational pensions, and then in the secondary realm comprising taxes and benefits. Predistribution is about action in the primary realm. Here the wages that workers earn are the outcome of ‘a complex process of implicit and explicit bargaining between workers, employers, and (where they exist) unions’: the influence of each compared to the others matters, and is a function of various rules and regulations. 

This is of interest to anyone interested in economic inequality because this realm is where the bulk of the balance or imbalance of economic resources arises: the ‘biggest single factor in determining the distribution of market income is the relative shares going to wages on the one hand and to capital incomes (rent, interest, dividends, and capital gains) on the other’.  

In Australia, ‘capital gains arising from accumulated wealth have produced large increases in passive, unearned income that have added further to the wealth of the rich‘.  

Evidence from around the world bears this out too: in global terms, four fifths of inequality stems from what was going on prior to the government getting involved via tax and transfers, with only one fifth being the result of tax and transfers. The lower levels of inequality in Europe ‘cannot be explained by more equalizing tax and transfer systems… “Predistribution”, not “redistribution,” explains why Europe is less unequal than the United States’, according to Blanchet, Chancel and Gethin.  

So, there are a range of reasons which mean that predistribution is worth focusing when thinking about how to achieve a more balanced distribution of economic resources: 

  • Redistribution is not enough. As Hacker says, taxation and benefit payments ‘cannot do the work on their own’. 
  • Predistribution, in contrast, does not require government to spend substantial quantities of public money. Instead, in reducing inequality at source governments can generate fiscal savings by reducing the need for spending downstream (on benefits), thus freeing resources to spend elsewhere.  
  • There are a range of real politik reasons why redistribution is harder to pull off:  
  • Policies that are about spending (for example welfare payments) are challenging politically given concerns (reasonable or otherwise) about budget deficits and overall debt.  
  • Governments that do seek to be proactive on the redistribution front often face resistance and even backlash, as Hacker describes. He explains that the wealthiest have a tendency to complain – loudly – about increased taxes on their income and wealth.  
  • On the other hand, it is often easier to harness the ‘political space’ for action on predistribution measures than it is for taxing and benefits provision. 
  • Finally, although not noted by its original proponents, predistribution also matters because of the growing recognition that economic growth-based agendas are incompatible with keeping the world’s environment within planetary boundaries. Redistribution tends to rely on the economic growth: grow, tax, and spend back via welfare. So taking the science around the environmental limits to growth seriously compels consideration of mechanisms to ensure a good life for more people without having to rely on the grow and redistribute recipe. 

Implications for action  

Convinced that predistribution is worth getting behind? Superb. What might you want to think about encouraging – or, if you happen to work in the right place in government, actually implementing? 

Actions that policy makers need to be prepared to implement to promote predistribution include: 

  • Support for worker owned cooperatives (for example, via reduced taxes, simplified legislation, and education of ancillary services so they are more supportive of cooperatives). 
  • Legislation for worker rights and conditions (such as job security, being able to request flexible schedules and access to paid leave for family care). 
  • Regulations to strengthen the position of trade unions (what Hacker describes as a ‘countervailing power’) and corporate governance that puts workers on company boards. 
  • Enactment, and enforcement of minimum wages set at the level of living wages. 
  • Curbing extremes of high pay (for example, increased taxes when CEO to median pay exceeds a certain ratio). 
  • Broad based service provision that bolsters people’s endowment of human capital (such as decent education, vocational training, and health services). 
  • Addressing affordability of basic needs (for example, via provision of affordable housing, price caps on important services, and competition policy). 
  • Support for people who would otherwise struggle in the labour market to access good jobs (perhaps even a job guarantee). 
  • Regulation of financial markets and promotion of financial stability: for example, of how financial institutions behave (reducing high frequency trades, for instance); shifts in corporate governance; and ensuring capital flows to productive activities (rather than subsidising harmful activities and products). 
  • Promotion of fair trade. 
  • Public procurement with social goals in contracts. 

Conclusion  

Predistribution is a critical lever for generating a more balanced distribution of wealth. It’s an upstream mechanism that heads off inequality before it arises by shaping market outcomes to be fairer, rather than depending on government to even things up once inequality has emerged. There are a range of actions governments and other economic players can take to predistribute economic resources. Now it’s time to start talking about it more and putting the changes in place to make the most of its potential to create the economy we could have! 

NB A shorter version of this piece appeared in The Point: https://thepoint.com.au/opinions/260428-redistribution-or-predistribution-another-way-to-think-about-tackling-inequality  

Download our printable/shareable resource about Predistribution.

Predistribution Explainer

Read ‘The economy we could have’: https://nexteconomy.com.au/work/the-economy-we-could-have-new-paper-out-now/

Check out the series: https://nexteconomy.com.au/work/new-series-building-the-economy-we-could-have/

New series: ‘Building the economy we could have’

‘Building the economy we could have’ – A series of ideas, case studies and concepts exploring how we move to an economy that works for people and planet. 

Australia’s future depends on whether we can move beyond piecemeal reforms to embrace systemic change. 

Last year, we released The Economy We Could Have – a paper that looks under the bonnet of Australia’s economy: rising inequality, the erosion of the ‘fair go’, but also a story of hope. Of momentum growing across the country, and of enterprises and communities already leading the way. 

The response was one of excitement, speaking to a deep desire for transformative economic change rather than the same old, tired recipes. Now, with Australia facing new economic pressures including an oil crisis, the impetus to act is greater.  

Cartoon by Jess Harwood for The Next Economy

So, we are doubling down. The ideas that politicians and decision makers reach for in a crisis matter. We want those ideas to be the ones that put wellbeing at the centre: dignity, purpose, participation, fairness, and nature. As a foundation, rather than an afterthought.  

That’s where our new series comes in. 

Building The Economy We Could Have explores the ideas, case studies and concepts that show how we get there. Right now, there are many isolated or ‘Lego wins’, the examples that show what can be done better, yet scattered and disconnected. We are turning our focus to see these as building blocks: things worth doing more of, and connecting across the country. 

We’ll share examples that show another way is possible and outline the potential of wellbeing economic concepts in practice, with case studies, explainers, interviews, and of course drawing on our work in regional communities looking to build resilient and thriving communities through times of change. ‘ 

The series includes:  

  • Explainers on wellbeing economy concepts and how they are showing up in Australia 
  • Case studies of enterprises, communities and policy makers doing differently 
  • Australian history showing we have charted different approaches before 
  • Interviews with people bringing fresh ideas and approaches. 

We are excited to uplift the work that is steadily charting the way forward, drawing on Australian’s strengths as people who back their neighbours, champion local ideas, and have a long track record of showing the world what policies that work for people and planet can look like.  

This series is a starting point for deeper thinking and conversation. We’d love to hear what resonates, or what we are missing. Contact us here.

Read our first case study:

Earthworker Cooperative Network

Read our explainers:

Predistribution
Lifestyle Drift

Building the economy we could have: Earthworker Cooperative Network

Earthworker Cooperative Network gives us a glance into a wellbeing economy in action, where workers build the things we need in a worker-owned factory in Morwell. 

When writing ‘The economy we could have’, our Economic Change lead Dr Katherine Trebeck came across countless ‘Lego wins’. These were the examples of a wellbeing economy in action in Australia that we could look to for inspiration on the way forward, even if there aren’t enough of them yet to add up to complete system change.  

A great example is in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley, where Earthworker Cooperative, Australia’s first worker-owned factory, operates several enterprises. This includes the Earthworker Energy Manufacturing Coop, which produces heat pumps and solar hot water systems – its function first and foremost: to serve its worker owners. 

Earthworker has a vision that brings a wellbeing economy into practice: 

“…a world in which people everywhere are able to democratically determine the means of their existence, collectively meeting their needs while recognising our interconnection with each other, other species, and the environment in which we exist.” 

Earthworker has expanded to become a network of cooperatives that are committed to sustainability, both in social and environmental terms given the link between environmental harm and social injustice. 

Inside the worker-owned Morwell Factory (Photo contributed by Earthworker for our report) 

What co-ops make up the Earthworker network? 

  • Earthworker Energy Manufacturing Coop: produces new energy technology in Australia’s first worker-owned and run factory in the Latrobe Valley. Based in the Earthworker Morwell factory, it manufactures quality and high-performing stainless steel storage tanks for heat pump and solar hot water systems. 
  • Earthworker Smart Energy Cooperative helps households improve their home’s thermal efficiency and so their family’s comfort through assessments and draught-proofing. This in turn helps households save money and have more control over their energy use. 
  • The Earthworker Construction Cooperative provides residential construction, landscaping and maintenance services such as cabinet making, plumbing, pergola building, decking and more. Their motto is ‘Another world is being built’!  

There is clearly purpose behind what is being delivered by these cooperatives. Worker ownership is a mechanism of predistribution (as financial wealth goes either to workers or to the enterprise) and of economic democracy that enhances people power. By enhancing energy efficiency and being part of the renewable energy roll out, Earthworker is also helping prevent environmental challenges getting worse. In providing job opportunities to those who might otherwise face unemployment, they prevent the harm of job loss. 

So Earthworker speaks to all the ‘4Ps’ of a wellbeing economy in practice: purpose, prevention, predistribution, and people power. It demonstrates what we need more of to build an economy that serves people and planet. 

Earthworker’s logo, showing symbols of the Australian environmental and labour movements. 

What makes Co-ops part of a wellbeing economy? 

A wellbeing economy requires a substantial shift in how the economy is thought about and approached, looking for ways to benefit people and planet rather than profit for the few. 

Cooperatives (whether worker-owned co-ops, consumer co-ops such as groceries, or agricultural co-ops) are a great way to do this as they are owned, controlled and run by and for their members, creating economic democracy and a people-powered economy. They are democratically managed by ‘one member, one vote’, meaning everyone has an equal vote.   

Co-ops enhance predistribution because surpluses go back to members or the enterprise, so community wealth that stays in the community.  

Why Latrobe Valley 

The Valley has largely powered Victoria with brown coal for a century. When the coal power stations and State Electricity Commission (SEC) were privatised* in the 1990s, thousands of people lost their jobs and Victorians lost ownership of this essential infrastructure. (*Although since 2024, the SEC has been partially revived as a government-owned renewable energy company, with legislation that specifically protects it from privatisation).

The number of people employed in the power industry dropped from about 11,000 in the late 1980s to about 2,600 in 2001, causing the population to shrink significantly with nine per cent of the region’s residents leaving between 1991 and 1996. (See also The Latrobe Valley, Victim of Industrial Restructuring by Bob Birrell) 

Since then, the Valley has experienced high rates of disadvantage. In 2017 French-owned corporation Engie, announced the closure of Hazelwood mine and power station and roughly another 750 jobs were lost. 

How did Earthworker seek to address this economic injustice? 

The founders of Earthworker could see that the apparent conflict around jobs versus the environment wasn’t the full story and reflected a narrow lens. They recognised that there was a need to work together for just transition in the La Trobe Valley, and there was a dire need to create jobs that were better for workers and jobs that could contribute positively to the local community. 

Latrobe is one region where this is necessary, many other regions are also on the frontlines of economic transition that must include solutions that put wellbeing at the core, and the principles of prevention, predistribution, people power and purpose.

Australians are dissatisfied with the status quo and open to rethinking economic priorities that put people first. Earthworker shows a different model of business that can build an economy that works for people and for planet as a foundation, rather than an afterthought.

Resources:

Read our full report: ‘The economy we could have.’

Check out more about Earthworker here.

Find out more about Co-ops at BCCM, the peak body in Australia for Co-ops and Mutuals.

Building the economy we could have: insights from Progress 2026   

Australia’s economy may appear strong on the surface, but beneath the bonnet lie deep structural challenges: from rising inequality and insecure work to ecological breakdown. These demand more than piecemeal fixes; they need upstream economic transformation.    

Our Economic Change lead, Dr Katherine Trebeck, alongside Josh Devine from Regen Melbourne, hosted a workshop at Progress 2026 on going upstream for this economic transformation. Progress is the largest social justice conference in Australia, with more than 1,500 people attendees, 140 speakers from across the world and 60 sessions on how to win the change we need for people and planet. Here are some insights from the workshop. 

Katherine Trebeck and Josh Devine from Regen Melbourne at Progress 2026.

The roots of the problems 

The workshop opened with a provocative question from Frances Moore Lappé: “Why are we collectively creating a world that none of us as individuals actually want?” 

Participants identified numerous downstream challenges facing Australians today, including:  

  • Housing unaffordability  
  • Climate-driven bushfires  
  • Indigenous land loss  
  • Loneliness and mental ill-health  
  • Youth crime and family violence  
  • Wealth inequality and poverty  
  • Misinformation and rising fascism.  

Using upstream thinking, which is where attendees traced these symptoms to deeper economic roots rather than just looking downstream at the problems this system creates, they came up with the causes of these issues. These included corporate capture, extractive production systems, property as investment rather than shelter, deunionisation, and incentives that prioritise profits over social benefits.  

The vision: naming the world we want  

Rather than spending all our time on the problems of today, the group also imagined alternatives to our current economic system. Drawing inspiration from Regen Melbourne, Indigenous wisdom, and The Next Economy’s regional research, participants named what a better economy needed to deliver: dignity, fairness, connection, and ecological care.  

“Lego wins” as glimmers of light  

The workshop celebrated existing examples of positive change, what we refer to as ‘Lego wins’, the instances of what we need more of to build the economy we could have. Examples of these wins pointed to by the participants included:  

  • Community ownership: Hepburn Wind, energy co-ops, housing cooperatives  
  • Food systems: Oz Harvest, food co-ops, farmers markets, Buy Nothing groups  
  • Environmental action: Kelp farming, native nurseries, rooftop solar uptake  
  • Social infrastructure: Community gardens, third spaces, community toy and tool libraries  
  • Policy wins: Social procurement policies, minimum rental standards, Medicare  

These examples demonstrate that alternative economic models are already emerging across Australia.  

Dominant mindsets  

Yet these ‘Lego wins’ are not yet adding up to systemic change at the scale and pace needed. Pervasive myths and assumptions lock policy into inadequate downstream efforts. Some of these myths and assumptions called out by workshop participants include:  

  • Productivity leading to higher living standards for everyone  
  • Fiscal responsibility being more important than environmental stewardship  
  • Humans are primarily selfish and competitive (homo economicus)  
  • Welfare as a ‘burden’ rather than social good  
  • Economics is a science with hard, unchangeable rules  
  • Capitalism is superior to democracy  

Steps for action  

As the workshop finished, participants were invited to share examples of work that offered vehicles for working on economic system change. Organisations mentioned as potential partners and outlets included WEAll Australia, Rewiring Australia, Common Cause, and Energy Consumers Australia.  

Rising inequality, insecure work and ecological breakdown reveal deep structural problems in Australia’s economy that demand more than piecemeal  fixes. ‘The economy we could have’ workshop showed that these issues are not inevitable — they’re the result of choices shaped by power and values — and that alternative economic models are already emerging across the country. 

Read the report ‘The economy we could have’ for more details on where we can go to from here. 

Download report

📢 Stay tuned: In the coming months, we’ll be releasing a series that dives deeper into the glimmers of light we see in Australia for building ‘The economy we could have’.  

The Economy We Could Have – Webinar

Australia’s economy has delivered prosperity for some, but left many behind. The divides in housing, health, income and opportunity are widening — and they’re not inevitable. They’re the result of decisions, shaped by values and power. 

It doesn’t have to be this way. 

Across Australia and around the world, communities are already building alternatives — from cooperative energy projects and regenerative food systems to new legal frameworks and circular design. These examples show that change is not only possible: it’s already happening. 

In this one-hour session, The Next Economy CEO Lizzie Webb joins lead author Katherine Trebeck to unpack insights from The Economy We Could Have — a new paper that looks under the bonnet of the Australian economy and reveals how we can move beyond isolated ‘Lego wins’ toward a wellbeing economy that prioritises dignity, fairness, connection and ecological care. 

📅 Date: Thursday, 12pm AEST (1PM AEDT), 4 December 2025 

📍 Location: Online 

🎟 Tickets:  This event has already happened – watch the video below!

🎤 Speakers: The Next Economy CEO Lizzie Webb in conversation with lead author Katherine Trebeck.  

🔗 Explore the paper here

Watch the video