The most interesting development in economics today is not a new theory. It's the formation of a new coalition.
Wellbeing economics, Doughnut Economics, community wealth building, mission policy, regenerative economics, commons governance, beyond-GDP metrics and alternative ownership all seek to form an emerging “next economy”.
But here the problems start. A coalition is not a new school of economics. A school seeks theoretical consistency; a coalition seeks enough alignment to act.
And heterodox unity is mostly negative. It's building on a well established canon of rather old progressive ideas: Polanyi exposed the fiction of self-regulating markets. Keynes showed that capitalism requires macroeconomic management. Institutionalists showed that rules shape conduct more than intentions. Schumacher rejected the equation of growth with flourishing. Ostrom proved that communities can govern shared resources. Ecological economics placed the economy inside the biosphere before planetary boundaries entered policy.
Hence, the coalition knows precisely what it opposes: neoliberalism, extractive growth, financialisation, ecological overshoot and the reduction of citizenship to consumption. It's much less agreed on what should replace them.
Should growth end, slow or change composition? How much allocation should remain market-based? Should transformation be led by states, firms, cooperatives or commons? Which ownership forms can scale? How can advanced economies reduce material throughput while preserving legitimacy, employment, security and productive capacity?
Yes, the combined diagnostic intelligence is formidable. It explains inequality, ecological breakdown, institutional capture and the inadequacy of GDP with increasing precision.
But diagnosis is not strategy. The movement remains thin where political economy becomes operational: central banking, sovereign debt, exchange rates, productivity, industrial policy, fiscal conflict, geopolitics and coalition discipline. It advocates systemic transformation without a shared theory of property, decision rights, resource allocation or macroeconomics.
Undoubtedly, intellectual pluralism is its greatest asset because no single tradition can explain the present polycrisis. Yet pluralism is also its central vulnerability: every additional language, brand, book, course and certification raises the cost of collective action.
This is the paradox of heterodox convergence. The field gains reach mostly by suspending unresolved disputes.
Sadly, transformative projects do not prevail just because their ideas are morally superior. They prevail because of political organisation: prioritisation, discipline, resource concentration, leadership, efficient coordination, clear authority.
The next economy will not fail for lack of intellectual leadership. It will fail because brilliant critiques don't become a political force without a willingness to follow.