Markets Built for Humans, and the Case for a Purposeful Economy

Markets Built for Humans, and the Case for a Purposeful Economy

Abstract

The world now faces a choice: continue with a political and economic model built around self-interest and GDP growth, or adopt Purposeful Governance and create a Purposeful Economy that focuses on people and planet. Eric Beinhocker (Oxford economist) and Nick Hanauer (technology entrepreneur) have together published an insightful article entitled "Markets Built for Humans", which sets out a new framework to replace the tired assumptions of neo-liberal orthodoxy with an economics genuinely built around people. This framework aligns very well with the Good Turns Foundation's work on Purposeful Governance, Purposeful Government, and Purposeful Economics, and this article (created by Claude) examines why, and how.

“How an Oxford economist, a Seattle entrepreneur, and a British purpose movement have arrived - from entirely different directions - at the same new economics”.

Purpose - What’s it all for?

Every so often, two pieces of work developed independently, from different disciplines, different countries and different starting assumptions, converge on the same conclusion at almost the same moment. When that happens, it is worth paying close attention - because it suggests the conclusion is not a matter of ideology, but of something closer to an emerging consensus.

Markets Built for Humans, the new framework from Oxford economist Eric Beinhocker and Seattle-based entrepreneur and venture capitalist Nick Hanauer, sets out to dismantle the flawed assumptions sitting beneath decades of policymaking orthodoxy, and to replace them with an economics genuinely built around people, planet and democracy. Read alongside the Good Turns Foundation’s own body of work on Purposeful Governance, Purposeful Government and a Purposeful Economy, the overlap is not superficial. It runs principle by principle, all the way down.

This article sets out to do something the two source documents don’t yet do for each other: join them up, point by point, and show why an Oxford-and-Seattle economic framework and a Britain-based purpose movement are, in substance, describing the same shift.

Two starting points, one shared complaint

Beinhocker and Hanauer’s diagnosis of the “old paradigm” is unambiguous: an economics built on self-interest as the organising assumption, GDP growth as the primary measure of success, and markets and government treated as largely separate from questions of democracy and planetary health. Their stated ambition is to offer a genuine alternative to both a failed neoliberal orthodoxy and the authoritarian populism that has risen in its place.

That diagnosis will sound immediately familiar to anyone who has read the Good Turns Foundation’s account of “Broken Britain”: a country whose institutions optimise for whatever gets measured - quarterly targets, election cycles, headline GDP figures - while the things that actually determine whether a society functions well (trust, wellbeing, belonging, the sense that effort is fairly rewarded) go largely unmeasured, and so get silently deprioritised. Crumbling infrastructure, a housing market behaving like a speculative asset class rather than a supply of homes, a health service permanently managing crisis rather than preventing it, eroding civic trust - these, in the Good Turns Foundation’s account, describe more than a list of policy failures. They describe a country, and a governing philosophy, that has lost track of its own purpose.

Where the two frameworks differ is in vantage point, not in verdict. Beinhocker and Hanauer arrive at this diagnosis from inside economics itself - drawing on research from economists, political scientists and practitioners working across the field. The Good Turns Foundation arrives at broadly the same place from a governance and purpose tradition, reaching into government, education, enterprise and place. Two routes. The same destination.

Principle by principle: where the frameworks meet

Markets Built for Humans sets out its new paradigm as ten linked propositions, moving from the purpose of the economy through to markets, government, power and the planet. Read against the five commitments that make up Purposeful Governance, most of them line up closely - sometimes almost exactly.

1. The purpose of the economy is human flourishing. This is the opening move in Markets Built for Humans, and it is also, in different language, the starting point of Purposeful Economics: an economy explicitly oriented around improving the wellbeing of people and planet, rather than treating wellbeing as a fortunate by-product of growth. Both frameworks insist on the same reordering - flourishing first, growth as a consequence of getting flourishing right, not the other way round.

2. Prosperity is created by solving human problems. Purposeful Governance’s account of a Purposeful Economy translates this into policy terms directly: industrial strategy weighted towards durable capability rather than headline investment numbers, rewarding firms that build skills, supply chains and export capacity, not simply those generating the largest short-term financial return. Both frameworks are, in effect, asking the same question of any economic activity - is this solving a real human problem, or merely extracting value from one?

3 & 4. We solve human problems by cooperating; cooperating at scale and building knowledge drives progress. This is where the frameworks connect most tightly, and where Purposeful Governance has arguably done the more detailed empirical legwork. Mainstream economic modelling, Purposeful Governance argues, has for decades leaned on a familiar trio of capital, labour and technology-driven productivity - counting labour by headcount and skill level, but never properly accounting for whether people are actually engaged, motivated, switched on, or merely present. The gap this leaves is not trivial: workplace research cited in the Purposeful Governance literature finds engagement levels below ten per cent in many organisations, rising to seventy per cent or more where people understand their organisation’s purpose and can see how their own work contributes to it - something close to a six-fold difference, with knock-on effects for innovation, output and retention that conventional growth accounting was never built to capture.

That is not a side note to Markets Built for Humans’ claim that cooperation drives prosperity. It is closer to a mechanism for it - a specific, measurable economic channel through which trust and shared purpose convert into the kind of cooperative capability the framework describes. Purposeful Governance goes further and proposes an actual modelling fix: an “engagement-adjusted” measure of human capital, in which effective labour is treated as a function of skill and engagement together, rather than skill alone. Because labour’s share of output tends to be weighted more heavily than capital’s share in standard production functions, even modest shifts in engagement can move the dial on GDP more than many conventional policy levers - a genuinely novel, testable contribution to exactly the kind of “new economics” both bodies of work are calling for.

5. Inclusion, fairness and trust are the foundations of cooperation, and therefore of prosperity and progress. Purposeful Governance’s account of the “productivity puzzle” makes essentially the same case in reverse: a meaningful share of Britain’s long-running productivity underperformance may have been hiding in plain sight, quietly filed under the unexplained residual economists call Total Factor Productivity - disengagement and low trust as an invisible drag on growth that nobody was measuring, because nobody was looking for it. Meta-analytic research across hundreds of studies and millions of employees, referenced in the Purposeful Governance literature, finds that wellbeing and engagement do not merely follow from good performance - they help cause it, with engagement levels predicting future profitability more strongly than profitability predicts future engagement. That is inclusion, fairness and trust, measured as an economic input rather than asserted as a moral aspiration.

6. The role of business is to organise cooperation to solve human problems. 7. The role of markets is to create competitions that evolve better solutions to human problems. Purposeful Governance does not challenge either of these framings; it operationalises them. Its account of Purposeful Governance rests on embedding purpose into the actual mechanics of an organisation’s decision-making - board composition, incentives, capital allocation, recruitment, promotion, procurement - rather than confining it to an annual report nobody reads twice. That is what it looks like, in practice, for a business to genuinely organise itself around solving human problems rather than merely claiming to. Purpose, on this account, is not a values statement bolted onto a strategy; it has to become the discipline against which the strategy - and every decision beneath it - is tested.

8. The role of government is to foster trust and cooperation, and to limit problem-creating activity. This is close to a mirror image of one of Purposeful Governance’s sharper distinctions: between extractive, financialised activity that generates paper wealth without much underlying value, and activity that builds durable capability, decent jobs and exportable capacity. Both register identically in the headline growth statistics. Neither Markets Built for Humans nor Purposeful Governance believes current policy is well equipped to tell them apart. A government serious about either framework, Purposeful Governance argues, would weight its industrial strategy and public procurement accordingly - running its own departmental decisions through the same purposeful filter it asks business to apply, rather than treating “growth” as a single undifferentiated number to be maximised regardless of what is actually growing.

9. Power shapes economies, and so must be shaped by democracies. This is perhaps the most direct point of alignment in the whole comparison. Purposeful Governance makes the institutional version of this same argument: that purpose cannot simply be declared from the top and left to trickle down: it has to be built systemically into decision-making, tested continuously, and integrated with ground-up insight rather than imposed purely top-down. Both frameworks name the same failure mode - purpose or democratic accountability adopted as language without the underlying governance substance to back it up - and both regard that failure mode as worse than doing nothing at all, because unmet promises erode trust further rather than rebuilding it. Markets Built for Humans frames this as a question of who holds power in an economy and how democracy constrains it; Purposeful Governance frames it as a question of who defines an institution’s purpose and how rigorously that purpose is enforced against every decision. They are, in substance, the same question asked from different ends.

10. The economy must support the flourishing of life on Earth. Purposeful Governance’s account of a Purposeful Economy closes on the same note: growth measured not against a failed proxy, but against genuine improvement in the wellbeing of people and planet together, with exploitation and extraction explicitly rejected as a viable long-term model. Neither framework treats the environment as an externality to be priced in only when convenient; both put planetary limits inside the definition of economic success, rather than outside it.

The governance gap: what neither framework can afford to skip

Where Markets Built for Humans is, by its own account, primarily a framework - a new story for how prosperity is created, aimed at policymakers, business leaders, journalists and academics - Purposeful Governance spends more of its energy on the harder, less glamorous question of implementation: what does an institution actually have to do, mechanically, to become purposeful rather than merely purpose-branded?

Purposeful Governance’s answer rests on five commitments. An explicit statement of purpose has to sit above strategy, not be retrofitted beneath it - tested at board or Cabinet level, not merely pinned to a wall. Institutions need to move beyond efficiency (how fast, how cheap, how many processed) to effectiveness, which can only be measured once purpose has been clearly defined - efficiency without purpose tells you how busy you are, not whether you are achieving anything that matters. Purpose then needs to be built into the actual mechanics of decision-making - procurement, incentives, recruitment, capital allocation - integrating top-down strategy with ground-up insight in a continuous loop, rather than treating purpose as a fixed pronouncement handed down once and never revisited. This builds on, and extends, the purpose-driven work already underway through the British Academy, BSI’s PAS808 standard, and the forthcoming international standard ISO37011, which is set to establish baseline purpose-driven practice across some 170 countries. And finally, human motivation and engagement need to be treated as a genuine economic asset in their own right, not a soft HR afterthought bolted onto the real business of running an institution.

That last point is where Purposeful Governance’s contribution to Markets Built for Humans’ broader framework is most concrete. A ten-principle economic framework can say, correctly, that cooperation and trust are the foundations of prosperity. Purposeful Governance supplies the operating manual: the specific governance mechanisms - a consistent set of questions testing every decision against stated purpose, purpose embedded in board composition and procurement rules, engagement measured and reported alongside output - through which that cooperation is actually built, sustained, and prevented from decaying into empty language.

This matters because both frameworks are honest about the same risk. Markets Built for Humans is explicit that its ideas will only matter if they spread and are genuinely applied, not merely discussed. Purposeful Governance names the risk more sharply still: government is, if anything, more exposed than business to the trap of adopting purposeful language without doing the governance work behind it, precisely because the language of purpose is free to reach for and easy to publish, while redesigning the incentives underneath it is genuinely difficult, slow, and politically unglamorous work. A government, or a business, that manages this transition well builds trust and legitimacy that compounds over years. One that reaches for the vocabulary without the substance deepens the very trust deficit both frameworks are trying to repair.

Purposeful Places, and where the abstraction becomes real

One further point of convergence is worth drawing out, because it is where both frameworks stop being abstractions and start describing something people can actually see on their own high street. Purposeful Governance’s account of “Purposeful Places” argues that none of this will feel real to most people if it exists only as a national slogan or a line in a policy paper - it has to show up in a town centre, a regional job market, a specific set of investment decisions made in partnership with the local councils, mayors and business communities who understand those places best. Purposeful places create the ecosystem; the people within them provide the energy; and it is the two together, repeated across a country, that eventually add up to something like a genuinely purposeful nation - rather than one declared into existence centrally and expected to trickle outward.

Markets Built for Humans makes the equivalent case at economic-policy level: the framework only matters if it is actually applied to real issues, by people working through partner organisations such as the Middle Out Center, INET Oxford and Civic Ventures, engaging directly with policymakers, business leaders and communities rather than remaining a purely academic contribution. Both frameworks, in other words, understand that a new economic story only becomes real when it is deliberately, patiently built into specific places, specific institutions and specific decisions - not when it is simply published and left to spread on its own.

What it means, taken together

Individually, each piece of work makes a strong case. Markets Built for Humans brings the intellectual weight of economics, political science and decades of research from two people who have spent their careers inside markets and inside the academy studying them. Purposeful Governance brings a detailed, practical governance discipline - a five-part operating model for how purpose actually gets embedded into an institution’s DNA, tested against a decade of work with organisations, education, and now government.

Together, they are considerably stronger than either is alone. Markets Built for Humans supplies the “why” - the intellectual case that human flourishing, cooperation and trust are not soft add-ons to economics but its actual foundations, backed by research spanning economists, political scientists and practitioners internationally. Purposeful Governance supplies a workable “how” - the governance mechanics, the decision filters, the engagement-adjusted economic modelling, and the place-by-place implementation discipline through which that intellectual case gets turned into lived practice inside real institutions, real government departments, and real towns. The case for a Purposeful Britain, and the case for markets built for humans, are not two competing visions asking for a choice between them. They are the same argument, made from two different directions, converging on the same conclusion: that an economy built around self-interest and GDP as the sole measure of success has already been tried, for a very long time, and its results are visible in every symptom people now associate with “Broken Britain” and with a broken global economic order. An economy - and a government - built instead around purpose, trust, cooperation and genuine human flourishing is not a utopian alternative. It is, on the evidence both frameworks now bring to the table, simply better economics.

Whether it ends up being called “market humanism,” “Purposeful Economics,” “Wellbeing Economics,” or something not yet coined, the destination looks remarkably like the same place: a Purposeful Britain, and a Purposeful World, built for humans rather than around them.

---

Further reading: ["Markets Built for Humans"](https://www.marketsbuiltforhumans.org/) by Eric Beinhocker and Nick Hanauer; ["Purposeful Governance, Purposeful Government and a Purposeful Economy"](https://www.goodturns.org/purposeful-governance-purposeful-government-and-a-purposeful-economy/) by David Clift, Good Turns Foundation.

David Clift

Purposeful Ambassador®

Founder, Good Turns Foundation

Co-developer of Gen P®, Purposeful Britain® and a Purposeful World®

^†Purposeful Governance™, Purposeful Economy™, Purposeful Government™, Purposeful Decision Filter™, Purposeful Policies™, Purposeful Organisations™, Purposeful Governance Movement™, Purposeful Governance Framework™, Purposeul Economics™, Purposeful Britain™, Purposeful World™, Purposeful Ambassador™, Gen P™, etc are all recognised/registered trademarks.