Voice, agency and investment
How alternative economic models can spread wealth and power more equitably
Populist discontent with the economy has become one of the defining features of contemporary politics. Its sources are familiar: widening wealth inequality, the concentration of power in financial institutions, the erosion of community voice, and the perception that existing economic models no longer deliver security or fairness. The question is how to respond.
In July, Compass, the Predistribution Initiative, Social Enterprise UK, and the Fairness Foundation organised a roundtable with business leaders, cooperative advocates, policy-makers, and investment professionals to discuss alternative economic models as a promising response to rising disaffection and widespread distrust in the status quo. This article summarises a full write-up of the discussion by Jack Jeffrey, Senior Researcher at the Fairness Foundation.
The discussion began with the structural flaws of the current model. Prevailing financial and corporate practices remain heavily oriented toward short-term shareholder returns. Labour and natural resources are treated as externalities, undervalued in both accounting standards and incentive structures. The result is a pervasive financialisation, in which assets from housing to water are commodified and absorbed into global capital flows. This has destabilised both economic resilience and democratic accountability. Efforts to correct these imbalances through Environmental, Social and Governance frameworks were widely seen as insufficient. ESG tends to focus on the performance of portfolio companies while neglecting the behaviour of investors themselves, and it is far better equipped to measure climate risk than to evaluate inequality or wage stagnation. The absence of a robust framework that treats inequality as a systemic risk has left financial actors without the tools or incentives to reorient capital toward long-term inclusive outcomes.
Alongside critique, the roundtable also considered the potential of alternative institutional forms – cooperatives, credit unions, community-owned ventures. These models embed social value in their design, often without recourse to the ESG label, and they serve to democratise ownership and root economic activity in place. Yet their limitations were acknowledged. At present scale, they are unlikely to deliver system-wide transformation. Without complementary structural reforms – such as worker representation on company boards, new rules on pension governance, and regulatory frameworks that rebalance incentives – these models will remain important but marginal. Participants argued for a dual strategy: supporting the growth of the social economy while also pursuing reforms that shift power and capital across the wider system.
This naturally raised the question of politics and narrative. A recurring theme was the absence of a coherent political project around inclusive economic reform. Government action has been piecemeal; Labour has hesitated to embrace a full agenda of wealth redistribution or structural reform. This vacuum has left space for populist movements, which have proved far more adept at narrative construction. By naming adversaries – whether elites, foreign institutions, or minority groups – they supply a sense of agency and identity. By contrast, centre-left politics often defaults to technocratic language or moralising tones that fail to resonate beyond narrow constituencies. Participants stressed the need for a narrative that connects alternative models to values widely shared across the political spectrum – dignity, security, fairness – and that communicates with humility rather than presumption. Equally, it was argued that economic reformers cannot avoid identifying extractive behaviours and actors, whether in tax avoidance, monopolistic utilities, or predatory finance. Without such clarity, the call for reform lacks the sharpness needed to mobilise support.
Another important dimension concerned the cultural and psychological obstacles to reform. When people experience insecurity, they adopt a scarcity mindset: prioritising immediate personal protection over longer-term collective goods. Pensioners may focus narrowly on returns without questioning how those returns are generated, while households struggling with rising costs may resist reforms they perceive as threatening to their stability. This scarcity mindset can obstruct even well-designed reforms. To counter it, participants emphasised the importance of projecting a vision of abundance: not one based on austerity or sacrifice, but one that shows how redistribution, new ownership models, and stronger regulation can enhance personal security and collective prosperity.
International examples provided further stimulus. European co-determination models, such as Denmark’s requirement for worker representation on company boards, demonstrate that alternative governance structures are both feasible and effective. New Zealand’s adoption of wellbeing indicators into national budgets shows how policy frameworks can be reshaped. Broader conceptual innovations, such as Doughnut Economics in Amsterdam or community wealth-building in Cleveland and Preston, illustrate the potential of locally grounded initiatives that are nonetheless internationally networked. These examples reinforce the point that alternatives are not utopian abstractions, but they also reveal the need for better coordination between philanthropists, impact investors, and government to overcome challenges and move past pilot projects.
The discussion also identified concrete policy levers. Amending company law to require directors to consider employees, communities, and the environment alongside shareholders could embed social purpose in corporate governance. Restoring worker voice in pension funds and strengthening accountability across private finance would help re-democratise investment. Regulating private equity, closing tax loopholes, and expanding the role of credit unions and cooperatives through state support and procurement policies were also proposed. None of these measures on their own would be transformative, but taken together, they could create an enabling environment for alternative models to flourish.
The overarching conclusion was that this is not only a matter of technical adjustment but a political and cultural project. Without a compelling narrative, broad coalitions, and a credible vision of the good life, alternative economic models will remain peripheral. With them, they could form the basis of a more equitable and resilient economy.
UPCOMING EVENT
Cursed by inequality: The history and future of societal collapse
Lecture Theatre 4.04, Bush House, Central London (and livestreamed online)
18.15 to 19.30, Monday 20 October 2025
Dr Luke Kemp’s new book, Goliath’s Curse: The History and Future of Societal Collapse, looks at what brought down the empires of Egypt, Rome, China and other Goliaths, and finds that they were hollowed out by increasing inequality and concentrations of power before an external shock dealt the final blow.
What lessons can we learn from this radical retelling of history for our current, fragile political moment, in the UK and beyond? Join us for a thought-provoking (and hopefully not entirely pessimistic) conversation about the risks posed by inequality in Britain today to our society, democracy, economy and environment and what we can do about them to avert disaster. Luke will be joined by Dr Danny Sriskandarajah, CEO of the New Economics Foundation, in a conversation hosted by Dr Jeni Mitchell, director of the KCL Future Threats Lab, and Will Snell, CEO of the Fairness Foundation.