Charles Montgomery has travelled around the world to better understand what it means to have a Happy City, how we can build it by focusing on what makes us truly happy, and how it changes everything when we do. This concept is a key part of the shift towards economies that work for people and the planet, because when we build cities around happiness, we are simultaneously building an economy that works for us as a whole.

What are some key elements of New Economies?

First up: new economies must value happiness and wellbeing, rather than relying on cold, hard GDP as a guiding objective. I think this is a reasonable transition, because the reliance on GDP as a measure of societal success was an invention itself. More than 200 years ago, when the intellectual elite of the Enlightenment concerned themselves with the pursuit of happiness, economists pronounced happiness unmeasureable, and concluded that since we can’t measure good and bad feelings, policymakers need to rely on what people spend their money on to tell them what makes people happy.

Now, scientists have studied human wellbeing, health, and happiness, and they’ve discovered two things: First, is that peoples’ self-reports on their own happiness correspond to physiological states in the human body as well as public health outcomes; Second, we can correlate these self-reports with all kinds of economic, societal, environmental, and health, contributors. So we now have the tools to move on from this simplistic idea of what it is to succeed as a society.

Another element driving new economies is that we are starting to measure things that really matter. We used to measure GDP, or products moved, or vehicle speeds on our streets; now, policy makers and the rest of us are considering things like life satisfaction, job satisfaction, health outcomes, and the most important ingredient of human happiness, resilience, and productivity, which is social trust.

Social trust is the most powerful ingredient of human happiness, but it is also a key driver of economic productivity, community resilience, and health outcomes.

Cumulatively, the previous two points add up to this one – new economies are social and collaborative, rather than individualistic and proprietary. This acknowledges that the most powerful driver of human happiness is social relationships. It is positive relationships along with social trust together that keep our communities resilient, healthy, and wealthy. These relationships also drive our economy.

How do we work toward fostering these types of genuine social relationships?

The most powerful tool for fostering social trust is the face-to-face encounter. So, while the internet and social media have been helpful in creating and broadening our social networks and in building useful connections, psychologists are finding that online connections are almost never as deep, honest, supportive, and trusting, as those that happen in person.

How does this relate to cities?

This is why the way we design our cities is so important. Cities mediate all of our relationships. We spent the better part of a century building cities that disperse people and destinations far away from each other. Now we know that this dispersal corrodes what geographers call social interaction potential, which is the ability for people to meet face-to-face. Fortunately, we’ve started to embrace complexity and connectivity in our cities. We’re recognizing that the mixed-use, walkable, connected, neighbourhood is not just a healthier place, but also a more social place, and a more creative and economically productive place.

Should we try to measure happiness? If so, how?

This is the great challenge. We have to avoid the trap that the high modernists fell into a century ago. We cannot rely on one measurement of success. It is tempting to want to use one survey question, such as a question about subjective wellbeing, like “how happy are you?” as the measurement of success of any initiative or place.

While we can learn from these surveys, we must not use any one measure to guide us, because human well-being is as complex and layered and multidimensional as our cities themselves. What we have done with Happy City is to draw lessons from all of the social sciences, and from great cities around the world, and then empower people at the local level to use those tools and create places that meet their needs, and are inspired by their own hyperlocal, complex, organic, nuanced, version of the Happy City.

For example, my team and I worked with the citizens of Mexico City to do a Happy Neighbourhood Audit of a contested neighbourhood called Doctores, and the participants stopped us part way through the process, and told us that our model needed a serious tweak to work in Mexico. We asked what they meant, and they pointed out that on our happiness framework we use in Canada, we don’t emphasize safety and security. In Canadian cities, security is no longer people’s first concern. But in Mexico, security is everything. It consumes people’s nights, days, and political passions. It shapes their worldview. Interestingly, while they were driven by a concern for security, they still suggested the same sidewalks, streets, parks, and interventions that we heard from Canadian, American, and European participants. There are some things that are always part of the conversation, but the local context matters. They taught us that no matter how robust a theoretical model may be, the local experience always trumps the global approach. 

What does “real wealth” mean to you?

This is a question one has to take personally. I would say that real wealth means I have what I need to stay strong, connected, and challenged, while thriving. The foundation of that, is always going to be my relationships with other people.

Charles Montgomery is an author, urbanist and creator of transformative conversations about wellbeing in cities. His award-winning book, Happy City, examines the intersection between urban design and the emerging science of happiness. Collaborating with the Guggenheim Museum and other entities, Montgomery has created experiments and design methods that help participants alter their relationships with their cities, and with each other. His writings on urban planning, psychology, culture and history have appeared in magazines and journals on three continents. Among his numerous awards is a Citation of Merit from the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society for outstanding contribution towards understanding of climate change science. He lives in Vancouver and Mexico City. Learn more at www.thehappycity.com.

This blog is part of the ‘Voices of New Economies‘ series within Cities for People – an experiment in advancing the movement toward urban resilience and livability through connecting innovation networks.

The Voices of New Economies series is collectively curated by One Earth and The Canadian CED Network.

This series is an exploration of what it takes to build the economies we need – ones that work for people, places, and the planet. We are connecting key actors, finding patterns, noting interesting differences, and highlighting key concepts and initiatives. Together, this series offers insights into the new economies movement as it develops.

< BACK

For Alex Wood, Senior Director, Policy and Markets at Sustainable Prosperity, the concept of new economies is directly aligned with that of green economies.

Currently, Alex is working on the Sustainable Prosperity Framework project.  Focusing on the three pillars of environment, economy, and society, the Framework is designed to create a new vision for what a sustainable, competitive Canadian economy might look like in the coming years.  That vision, which will be developed with leaders from business, civil society, and academia, will form the basis of a sophisticated communications effort that will engage and inspire Canadians.

What are the key elements of “new economies”?

The Sustainable Prosperity Framework will focus on three elements:

1. Sustainable – When defining green or new economies, there is a tendency to emphasize new forms of economic development and new sectors that have a lighter footprint. Our take on this is that the definition can and should be recognized in the Canadian context, but we also need to bring in the ‘brown’ (non-sustainable) models of industry in our economy, to shape their future in a way that lightens their footprint. This is about how and who you engage, and why. We find a negative reaction when we discuss sustainability in traditional sectors of our economy (especially the extractive sectors), so we need a definition that includes these sectors and defines for them the opportunity that a more sustainable and competitive economy presents. We want to focus on building out the greenest green, and engaging the “brown” green, to see how they can all contribute to our long-term sustainability.

2. Competitive – This tracks closely with the sustainability point, which looks at how we build an economy on the back of a growing greenest green sector. If we’re going to continue to extract resources and use our natural capital, how do we do that in a way that sets us up for long-term competitiveness? A focus on sustainability in those sectors that is driven by innovation, that improves our competitiveness globally, and creates solutions that then drive sustainability is important. As they focus on their models and solutions, they become more competitive. Sustainability then makes a business case because it can be competitive.

3. Inclusive – We wrote our green economy white paper 2 years ago, and since then, there has been an increased focus on the social dimension of the green economy in global discussions. The basic assumption is that even if you choose to green your economy, there are choices that promote better social outcomes versus other options. Social outcomes such as economic opportunity, inclusivity, and improved economic benefits for aboriginal communities are all critical.  The steps that Canada takes to create a sustainable economy can’t lead to worse social outcomes. The policies and solutions in the green economy must have concern around social issues embedded in them.

How does this relate to cities?

Our framework project will have a substantial component focused on cities. There will be three likely elements to  this: cities, innovation, and investment. When it comes to cities, you have a platform that allows you to integrate policies, public, and private sectors. This is a huge opportunity – cities give us a platform on which we can say look at this city, its infrastructure, transportation, natural capital, etc., and think about how you can transform this into something more sustainable. The other dimension of this, of course, is that over 80% of Canadians live in an urban setting.  So engaging Canadians in a positive, affirmative discussion of the green economy needs to describe what that looks like in an urban setting.

What happens in cities is what will determine the course of our sustainable economy.

What is your perspective on the recently launched Ecofiscal Commission?

There is a personal thread running through Canada’s Ecofiscal Commission for me, which dates back to work that I did 10 years ago on the National Roundtable on the Environment and Economy, as the project I managed was on ecofiscal reform in Canada. I worked on that for four years, and it had some profile and success, but the Ecofiscal Commission has really taken that discussion to a completely different level. This is important, because it points out the significance of communications around this. We have known for some time the economic and environmental arguments for ecofiscal reform, but coming from “us”, it hasn’t always translated the way it is now. When it comes to shaping economic decisions, people with backgrounds like mine (coming from the environmental side with an economic background) need additional voices of support in making the economic case. So the Ecofiscal Commission is a very exciting opportunity to do just that.

What does real wealth mean to you?

The word “wealth” provokes a personal response, and makes me think about a holistic definition of wealth, not just the economic part. Most of the time, my default is to think on the macro level, and to think of what wealth is in Canada. Often, we communicate about this based on concepts that are not well grounded, and that are hard to base in personal experience. As an economist, I’ve got a set definition of what wealth is; but as a human being, I’ve got a broader definition. For me, that definition is rooted in a set of experiences and a set of values that shape our experiences, and our choices all contribute to this.

Real wealth is about a more holistic definition of a well-lived life.

Alexander Wood is one of Canada’s leading experts on the green economy.  Alex has over twenty years’ experience working at the interface of the environment and the economy, with a particular focus on the development of market-based policies that contribute to a sustainable economy.  He has worked in the non-profit (WWF), public (NRTEE), and private (TD Bank Financial Group) sectors, and is now Senior Director, Policy and Markets at Sustainable Prosperity. Alex is a graduate of the University of Toronto (B.A.) and the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (M.A.)

This blog is part of the ‘Voices of New Economies‘ series within Cities for People – an experiment in advancing the movement toward urban resilience and livability through connecting innovation networks.

The Voices of New Economies series is collectively curated by One Earth and The Canadian CED Network.

This series is an exploration of what it takes to build the economies we need – ones that work for people, places, and the planet. We are connecting key actors, finding patterns, noting interesting differences, and highlighting key concepts and initiatives. Together, this series offers insights into the new economies movement as it develops.

< BACK

Key elements of new economies include:  

1. Resourcefulness: Utilising unused resources, seeing opportunity in what was traditionally considered waste;
2. Disruption: breaking down the old and creating better brighter solutions;
3. Increased citizen engagement, participation and access. 

Energy sector and the collaborative economy

Decision-making in both public and private sectors has moved in recent years to ensure the inclusion of a variety of stakeholders. As Arnesteine said in her 1969 paper, ladders of citizen power “Citizen participation is citizen power”. This shift in attitudes towards citizen participation has been characterized as a rejection of the top-down policymaking approach: “Sustainable development cannot be imposed from above. It will not take root unless people across the country are actively engaged.”

Collaboratively owned and managed energy projects represent the highest rung of citizen control and an important stakeholder serving as the voice for citizen mandate. While the conventional system of energy provision usually involves highly centralised energy infrastructures with end of the line dependent consumers, locally and cooperatively owned facilities for energy production can constitute a substantially differing model of energy provision and distribution.

This empowers its members to become producers, and to not just be traditional consumers. Recently, liberalisation of energy markets as well as feed-in tariffs for electricity generated from renewable sources introduced in several countries has opened up new actor roles and markets accessible to citizen groups. With the possibility to sell their electricity to the grid as independent producers or even to act as utility companies selling directly to customers, collaboratively owned energy projects are becoming market actors in their own right.

As someone coming from India, energy has always been an issue of prime importance and concern. Millions of people still don’t have access to regular and assured supply of electricity and cheap assured supply is a frequent election campaign promise. Traditionally the burden of providing electricity and power supply is rested on the government, who has not been doing a great job of it. The idea of consumers owning their energy supply, having a say in the choice of energy source and management of facilities is quite liberating.

Cities and energy and new economies

New economies are exciting prospects for cities, to re-define and re-develop ourselves in the face of different challenges. Estimates suggest that hundreds of million people will be added to urban populations over the next 10 years, leading to major demands on resources, particularly energy. Thus, smart city designs equipped to handle the demands of increased urbanization need to be built. Energy security is of prime importance and plays a significant role in the urban landscape, as cities are heavily dependent on assured supply of energy for development. Energy sector, which has traditionally been highly controlled, has immense potential to be revolutionised through new economic practices.

New economic practices in the energy sector have the following potential impact on cities:

1. Increasing the renewable energy sources in the energy mix thus reducing GHG emissions
2. Moving towards an energy supply that is more assured yet not fossil fuel based
3. Increasing citizen participation in energy planning and policies
4. Creating more resilient cities and communities

Real wealth

Real wealth means the understanding that growth for the sake of it is undesirable and that a triple bottom line approach is more beneficial in the long run. Real wealth means not falling in the trap of consumerism and competition. On a personal level real wealth indicates the ability to have a fulfilling life, one with choices and the ability to make informed decisions.

Related links:

• A ladder of citizen participation.
• Strategies for sustainability: citizens and responsible environmental behaviour.
• Understanding smart cities
• The role of public participation in identifying stakeholder synergies in wind power project development: The case study of Ontario, Canada

Pallavi Roy is a recent graduate from Ryerson University with a Masters in Environmental Applied Science and Management. She is currently working at CultureLink Settlement Services as a Metcalf Sustainability Intern. Her project aims to bring an environmental focus to settlement work, thus making the environmental movement more inclusive for newcomers, and the settlement sector greener. Pallavi is an environmental researcher and community activist with interests in sustainability, energy policy and community engagement. She is passionate about sustainability issues of urban life and is active in the community promoting adoption of sustainable lifestyle choices. Her previous work experience includes various not-for-profit organisations in Toronto, such as Jane’s Walk, Toronto Green Community, Foodshare, and The David Suzuki Foundation.

This blog is part of the ‘Voices of New Economies‘ series within Cities for People – an experiment in advancing the movement toward urban resilience and livability through connecting innovation networks.

The Voices of New Economies series is collectively curated by One Earth and The Canadian CED Network.

This series is an exploration of what it takes to build the economies we need – ones that work for people, places, and the planet. We are connecting key actors, finding patterns, noting interesting differences, and highlighting key concepts and initiatives. Together, this series offers insights into the new economies movement as it develops.

< BACK

It’s important to be clear about the language we’re using. Certainly there are new economic arrangements being formed in various places and at various scales, and those innovations are important to think about as we imagine the future economy. But when we talk about the “New Economy,” we’re talking about the next political and economic systems that we need to build to displace the dominant economic paradigm (a.k.a. corporatism, capitalism, neoliberalism… depending on who you’re talking to) that is driving inequality, instability, and and ecological crisis worldwide. And we’re trying to have that conversation in the context of social movement and economic history.

Key principles of the New Economy

As a network, New Economy Coalition is interested in pragmatic experimentation and is open to a range of perspectives when it comes to the details of exactly how such a system would work, but we’re also united by some strong underlying principles.

• We believe the New Economy needs to be restorative to people, place, and planet. That means getting beyond the kind of thinking that says we can grow our way out of problems at the expense of the natural capital and social capital on which our communities and our society depend.
• We also believe the New Economy should operate according to principles of democracy, justice and appropriate scale. This means reclaiming the concept of the common good and introducing democracy into economic life from the local to the global, rather than concentrating power in the hands of political or corporate elites.
• Finally, we believe in a just transition, which means we can’t get to the New Economy we need without centering the leadership, needs, and vision of those who have been marginalized by the current extractive economy.

When we apply that lens to the real world, and look at the kinds of work that our members are doing, we see that the individual practices in the New Economy — things like cooperation, democratic management of the commons, and more holistic views of wealth — are not actually new at all. Yes, people are using technologies and legal innovations to make this stuff accessible to new audiences but ultimately we’re building on practices that have been used by marginalized people for centuries as a means of survival and it’s important to honor that.

How does this relate to cities?

Cities are, in so many cases, the fertile ground where seeds of a New Economy are starting to sprout. Here in the US, our federal government hasn’t exactly built much of a reputation for being able to do bold and innovative things lately. On the other hand, we’ve been seeing really exciting developments in cities across the country. We often point to the impressive Evergreen Cooperatives in Cleveland, which are certainly worthy of the attention that they get but there’s so much more happening. In Boston, where our main office is located, we’ve seen an incredible ecosystem of organizations in low-income communities come together to build a growing, affordable, largely community-owned sustainable food economy. In the capitol of Mississippi, Cooperation Jackson made community wealth building the defining issue of their mayoral campaign and are continuing to lead the charge.

In Buffalo New York, community organizers are engaged in a sophisticated campaign to redevelop their neighborhood while creating living wage jobs and building green permanently-affordable housing. In the city of Boulder, Colorado, campaigners recently won a huge victory driving out a private-utility owned coal plant and replacing it with a new green municipal energy utility.  The city of Chattanooga, in Tennessee, is now home to the nation’s fastest internet speeds thanks to a municipally owned broadband network.

These are just a few of the more dramatic examples. We’re also seeing major cities raising their minimum wages, divesting their pensions funds from the fossil fuel industry, investing in co-ops and community ownership, embracing participatory budgeting, and much much more.

To talk about system change and building a New Economy in the face of the stagnation and regression of our national politics may seem naive.  However, to call for anything less than system change in the face of urgent and growing social and ecological injustice would be insufficient. I’d argue that this is all the more reason to look toward cities as a critical place where radical demands can be met with pragmatic and transformative possibilities.

Mike Sandmel is the Manager of Coalition Engagement for the New Economy Coalition. Raised by politically active Unitarian Universalists, Mike began organizing as a high school freshman working on a successful town wide living wage campaign. He graduated magna cum laude from New York University’s Gallatin School of Individualized Study with an interdisciplinary BA in ecology and economics. He founded and managed the NYU Bike Share, the first ever bike-sharing program in New York City. He was a 2011 Morris K. Udall Scholar, an exchange student in political economy and economic history at Stockholm University, and authored an honors thesis entitled “Populism In The Anthropocene: A Study of Climate Change Politics at Occupy Wall Street.” He has served for two years on the steering committee of SustainUS, a youth-run NGO that advocates for sustainable development at the UN level. He has taken part in delegations to UN negotiations in Rio de Janeiro and Doha. His writing has appeared in Grist, Common Dreams, Waging Nonviolence, Nation Of Change, N+1, and Alternet as well as Andrew Revkin’s “Dot Earth” blog for the New York Times.

This blog is part of the ‘Voices of New Economies‘ series within Cities for People – an experiment in advancing the movement toward urban resilience and livability through connecting innovation networks.

The Voices of New Economies series is collectively curated by One Earth and The Canadian CED Network.

This series is an exploration of what it takes to build the economies we need – ones that work for people, places, and the planet. We are connecting key actors, finding patterns, noting interesting differences, and highlighting key concepts and initiatives. Together, this series offers insights into the new economies movement as it develops.

< BACK

I had a feeling of being privy to an historic moment as I listened in on a call this week about designing a new ecology of practices to make more visible, connected and alive Canada’s community economy, new economy or whatever the most apt term might be.

Peter Pula of Axiom News shared conversation with a couple of folks respected in the country’s community economic development and social enterprise spaces as thought and action leaders, David LePage of Accelerating Social Impact CCC and Mike Toye of the Canadian Community Economic Development Network. Anne Jamieson of the Toronto Enterprise Fund is a close member in the conversation circle even though she wasn’t able to make Tuesday’s call.

So many people are working on common social development and community-building goals yet they’re siloed.

There is very real community work to be done in terms of introducing folks from silos to each other at a grassroots level as well as in a continuity of conversation.

Peter and his guests began to shape out a recurring pattern of national exchanges that also make room for local connections.

Marry that with related story artefacts and an infrastructure for moving those around and you’ve created something that’s emergent and living, but very real and connected and also very visible.

The ultimate goal is to hold a life-giving, generative space for new things to emerge across Canada’s community economy.

It was encouraging to hear the suggestion that the content of these dialogues not be determined by a couple of people “in an ivory tower” but that this direction come from those active in the community economy as they share their stories and what’s burning most strongly for them right now in terms of a challenge, energy point or new vision.

It was also thrilling to hear talk of including workshop sessions for people interested to build their skills in hosting their own small-group conversations or making media artifacts, so that they have that capacity to bring back to their local spheres of influence.

And it was neat to get clarified what role celebrities or thought provocateurs or conversations catalysts might play in all of this – not as the central figures, but to create the constraints for creativity to flourish in the places where it matters most – the authentic, small-group conversations.

Talking with folks from disparate fields over the last few years – from the community living sector to engineering to the social enterprise sphere – I’ve been struck by two recurring themes, seemingly paradoxical and yet, on fuller thought, clearly pulling from the same deeper well of longing.

People from the senior leadership of corporations and non-profits, government departments as well as grassroots folk talk of a need to break out of our silos, to collaborate, to talk together and work together – because ultimately, truly, we have more in common than we might think and together we can do more than alone. Usually, they’re also talking about crossing geographic divides.

Then there’s this tightening to the local scene, to neighbourhoods and local economies as the most promising spots of real thriving.

What I find so exciting about what was being shaped in that call this week is that this new ecology, if done right, provides a new way to enable and strengthen all of that.

This article was originally posted by www.axiomnews.com on December 18, 2014 and appears here with permission.

michelle_strutzenberger.jpg

Michelle Strutzenberger brings more than 10 years of experience in writing, social media, curation and digital distribution. Subject areas of interest include creating abundant or deep communities, social-mission business, education that strengthens kids’ sense of hope and possibility and journalism that helps society create its preferred future. She is currently supporting the development of Axiom News podcasts. Contact Michelle at michelle at axiomnews.com.

< BACK