Reframing the Problem
‍
For decades, Gross Domestic Product (GDP), a measure created in the 1930s, has been used as the  primary way to quantify economic growth. But this assessment ignores the underlying colonial legacies of growth itself. Development policy has frequently perpetuated inequitable power dynamics by favouring extractive, unidirectional aid models while neglecting the varied, localised, and relational knowledge systems that support well-being in the Majority World (Rodney, 1972; Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2013; Escobar, 1995). Development organisations use words like "partnership," yet many still work in methods that create top-down hierarchies and make the communities that receive help passive. Furthermore, development is frequently characterised predominantly by economic expansion rather than employing multidimensional indicators of growth and advancement. 

The term "Majority World" refers to countries and communities that constitute the vast majority of the global population but are often marginalised in global decision-making. These include nations across Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Indigenous territories worldwide. In contrast, the "Minority World" refers to the economically and politically dominant countries—primarily in North America and Western Europe—that hold disproportionate global power despite representing a smaller fraction of humanity. These terms shift the narrative away from hierarchies like "developed" and "developing," challenging the assumption that wealth or power equals universality.

GDP-centric development has led to a host of injustices: the invisibilisation of social reproduction, the destruction of ecosystems, the dislocation of communities, and the prioritisation of short-term profit over intergenerational dignity. It is time to recentre development on a more just, pluralistic, and reparative logic—one that speaks to the holistic needs of people and planet.
‍

Critique of Contemporary Development Policy
‍
Such development strategies frequently prioritise infrastructure over social reproduction, economic growth over ecological restoration, and outputs over human dignity. As Nancy Fraser (2016) contends, capitalist development models have historically prioritised market expansion and fiscal infrastructure over care and social reproduction. Concurrently, institutions such as UNRISD (2016) warn that an excessive focus on quantifiable outputs detracts from profound structural transformation grounded in justice and dignity. Vandana Shiva (2005) also criticises mainstream economic models for putting progress and expansion ahead of the health of the environment.

A notable feature of these models is their reliance on extractive industries to boost GDP, often at the cost of both human wellbeing and ecological sustainability.

One important thing about these models is that they depend on extractive sectors to raise GDP, which often comes at the cost of both human health and the environment. Alberto Acosta (2013) emphasises that neo-extractivism perpetuates colonial processes of resource exploitation, sustaining inequality and degrading ecological systems. The OECD (2021) also says that the way we are now taking resources from the world is not good for the environment in the long run. Patrick Bond (2014) has criticised the post-apartheid state's reliance on mining and other extractive industries in South Africa, contending that this jeopardises both human rights and environmental well-being.

Another problematic aspect is the gender-blind or even gender-hostile nature of mainstream economic evaluations, which consistently undervalue unpaid caregiving labour. Feminist economists like Diane Elson (1998) and Valeria Esquivel (2013) have long shown that unpaid care work, which is mostly done by women, is very important for the economy to work, but it is not counted in policy or national accounting systems. Marilyn Waring's key work (If Women Counted, 1988) illustrates how GDP-centric models omit women's unpaid efforts, hence distorting economic comprehension and public policy agendas.
Lastly, a lot of global policy approaches use the same templates, which ignore local culture, context, and governance structures. Arturo Escobar (1995) criticises development institutions for endorsing Western-centric paradigms that marginalise indigenous epistemologies and governance practices. James Ferguson (1994), in his examination of Lesotho, elucidates how technocratic development efforts depoliticise and distort local reality. The African Feminist Charter (2006) echoes this criticism by calling for governing methods that are based on the local context, feminist, and culturally relevant. Mahmood Mamdani (1996) contends that these templates sustain the legacy of colonialism by replacing indigenous systems with externally imposed bureaucratic frameworks.

These behaviours bolster colonial paradigms of knowledge and action, providing less opportunity for relational, reparative, or transformative frameworks of change. This article expands upon prior research and public scholarship by Pheko (2024), which positions reparative development as a political and economic need for the rebalancing of global power.
‍

Wellbeing Economics: Indigenous, Global, Necessary‍

Wellbeing economics provides a multifaceted perspective that goes beyond the increase of tangible wealth (Stiglitz, Sen, & Fitoussi, 2009). It enquires about the conditions that enable individuals to thrive: health, education, culture, autonomy, gender equity, ecological balance, and purposeful livelihoods. Wellbeing is not an alien idea to the Global South; it has consistently been integral to Indigenous cosmologies and governance systems (Durie, 1998; Pihama et al., 2019). It is ingrained in Ubuntu in southern Africa, Gadaa in Ethiopia, Adat in Indonesia, and Buen Vivir throughout Latin America. This article re-establishes wellbeing economics as a fundamental Indigenous framework rather than a mere policy trend. It shows how the Majority World has already started to use policy frameworks that focus on well-being and are based on these traditions.

Examples of Wellbeing-Oriented Policy in the Majority World
Several countries  across  Africa and Asia are changing the way they think about development. The multidimensional poverty index adds to income measures in South Africa. Kenya is testing a "Gross Country Happiness Index." Rwanda has included Imihigo performance contracts to set local well-being goals. The Gadaa system in Ethiopia is still a community-based, age-set system for justice and sustainability.

Gender-sensitive planning is having an impact on Nigeria's statistical systems. In Zimbabwe, Botswana, and Tanzania, development planning includes taking into account the health of the environment and making sure that everyone can take part. Food sovereignty movements in North Africa fight against corporate-led agriculture by supporting local agroecological expertise.

Asia has the same kind of resistance: India's Kerala model shows that you don't need a lot of money to improve people's lives. Thailand's Sufficiency Economy, Indonesia's Adat-based government, and Timor-Leste's cultural peacebuilding exemplify divergent paradigms of wealth. Māori approaches in Aotearoa put tūrangawaewae and cultural-spiritual health at the centre of policy.

The Cost of GDP-Centrism

GDP's supremacy has adversely affected the communities that development aims to elevate. It is still the most important part of eligibility for development assistance, trade negotiation frameworks, and climate funding distribution. The focus on growth has caused the wealthy to take over, people to lose their land, and the environment to fall apart. Mining has increased GDP in Ghana, but it has also polluted water and forced farmers to move (Oxfam Ghana, 2021). Export policies in the Philippines and Bangladesh that emphasise on GDP have made food security worse and made it easier for workers to be taken advantage of (FAO, 2020; ILO, 2021).

These examples demonstrate that economic development does not necessarily equate to economic redistribution. They emphasise the necessity for development policy to be responsive to lived experiences, historical injustices, and ecological limits. Wellbeing economics gives us this accountability.

Changing Development Policy with Wellbeing Economics

We need to change development policy from technocratic templates to ways that are relational, restorative, and participatory. To exemplify welfare economics, development policy ought to:

Instead of GDP, use many, context-specific measures of well-being, such as health, dignity, culture, safety, gender equality, and ecological balance.

Make participatory design a part of the system, giving local people, feminist economists, and Indigenous leaders the power to help plan development.

Put money into data sovereignty so that communities may set their own goals and monitor their own achievements.

‍
Challenging the 'Knower': Decolonial and Feminist Approaches

The prevailing development policy perpetuates a colonial epistemology, positioning the West as the knower and the Global South as the beneficiary. This imbalance of power makes local knowledge less valid and makes people more dependent on it. Decolonial feminist theory challenges this rationale, positing that knowledge and caring are multiple, embodied, and interdependent (Lugones, 2008; 2010).

So, development can't be an intervention; it has to be a process of reciprocal change and power transfer. Based on Swanson (2012), we support a "humble togetherness," where policy isn't about repairing other people but about building mechanisms that restore dignity and balance in relationships.

Conclusion: Development as Liberation

Wellbeing economics redefines growth as freedom (Sen, 1999), grounded in historical rectification, ecological stewardship, and community-defined thriving. It encourages policymakers, particularly in Europe, to transcend GDP and embrace solidarity. This is not simply a moral duty; it is also a strategic one. To help the Majority World, development policy must include co-creation, multiple knowledge systems, feminist ethics, and ecological justice. Anything less risks repeating the exact damages it wants to repair. For European policymakers, embracing wellbeing economics is not only a reform—it is a historical responsibility. Due to the lasting effects of colonialism, slavery, and global power inequalities, it is necessary to move from GDP-centered growth to justice-centered, co-created development. This change in the way things are done shows that Europe is dedicated to ecological responsibility, reparative solidarity, and a real cooperation with the Majority World in creating a post-growth future (Kothari et al., 2019).

___________________________________________

About the Author

Lebohang Liepollo Pheko is a  political economist, activist scholar, and international movement builder with over 30 years of experience across 52 countries. A Senior Research Fellow at Trade Collective, she works at the intersection of feminist, racial, and decolonial justice, with expertise in reparations, trade justice, and wellbeing economics.

___________________________________________

References

CONCORD Europe. (2021). Towards a Just Transition: EU Development Cooperation in a Climate Crisis.

Durie, M. (1998). Whaiora: Māori Health Development. Oxford University Press.

Elson, D. (1999). Labor markets as gendered institutions: Equality, efficiency and empowerment issues. World Development, 27(3), 611–627.

Escobar, A. (1995). Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton University Press.

FAO. (2020). Agricultural Policy and Food Sovereignty in the Philippines.

Fraser, N. (2010). Scales of Justice: Reimagining Political Space in a Globalizing World. Columbia University Press.

Hohe, T. (2002). The clash of paradigms: International administration and local political legitimacy in East Timor. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 24(3), 569–589.

ILO. (2021). Decent Work in Bangladesh's Garment Sector: Challenges and Opportunities.

Kapoor, I. (2008). The Postcolonial Politics of Development. Routledge.

Kothari, A., Salleh, A., Escobar, A., Demaria, F., & Acosta, A. (2019). Pluriverse: A Post-Development Dictionary. Tulika Books & Other Worlds.

Li, T. M. (2014). Land’s End: Capitalist Relations on an Indigenous Frontier. Duke University Press.

Lugones, M. (2008). The coloniality of gender. Worlds & Knowledges Otherwise, Spring, 1–17.

Lugones, M. (2010). Toward a decolonial feminism. Hypatia, 25(4), 742–759.

Maldonado-Torres, N. (2007). On the coloniality of being. Cultural Studies, 21(2–3), 240–270.

Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S. J. (2013). Coloniality of Power in Postcolonial Africa: Myths of Decolonization. CODESRIA.

Oxfam Ghana. (2021). Unearthing Inequality: The Social Impact of Mining in Ghana.

Oxfam. (2019). Time to Care: Unpaid and Underpaid Care Work and the Global Inequality Crisis.

Pheko, L. L. (2024). Recentring the majority and displacing the minority: A decolonial critique of growth. In Education for societal transformation: Alternatives for a just future (pp. 22–26). Norrag.

Pihama, L., Smith, L. T., Reid, J., & Te Nana, R. (2019). Towards the development of a Kaupapa Māori wellbeing framework. MAI Journal, 8(2), 164–180.

Pillay, D. (2021). Rethinking development through the lens of reparations. New Agenda, 80, 12–18.

Phongpaichit, P., & Baker, C. (2009). Thaksin. Silkworm Books.

Rahnema, M., & Bawtree, V. (Eds.). (1997). The Post-Development Reader. Zed Books.

Rodney, W. (1972). How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Bogle-L’Ouverture Publications.

Roy, A. (1999). The Cost of Living. Modern Library.

Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Alfred A. Knopf.

Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. Zed Books.

Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J.-P. (2009). Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress.

Swanson, D. M. (2012). Neocolonialism and the rebuilding of indigeneity: Towards a culture of humble togetherness. Social and Cultural Geography, 13(4), 367–382.

Taylor, L., & Broeders, D. (2015). In the name of development: Power, profit and the datafication of the Global South. Geoforum, 64, 229–237.

Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 1(1), 1–40.

UNDP. (2020). Human Development Report 2020. United Nations Development Programme.