Inferring from Moore et al.’s (2023) conceptualisation of prosperity, I draw comparisons and establish relationships between three distinct pathways to prosperity: econometric growth-driven as a general understanding of prosperity, holistic or well-being-centred prosperity, and a concept that I term “Universal Prosperity” - a theoretical concept grounded in a monotheistic framework.
The evolving understanding of prosperity (ibid.) that I term as Holistic Prosperity (HP) for the discourse of this paper, transcends mere Econometric Growth (EG), encompassing social facets of the human experience, including well-being and a sense of collective identity. Governments in the global north are introducing well-being indices, signalling a shift in priorities towards the inclusion of individual and social attributes in national assessments. Consequently, the traditional bureaucratic focus on economic indicators, such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP), appears to be waning, giving rise to the optimistic notion of transitioning from an obsession with GDP growth to a more environmentally sustainable “green growth” approach (Yellen, 2022). However, a sense of discontent persists, rooted in the conviction that these measures are insufficient to address the looming crisis. Alternately, there is the more radical concept of degrowth theory (Hickel, 2021), which advocates for frugal abundance. This concept lies at the far end of the spectrum of prosperity theories and may appear anarchic, for prevailing plutocratic institutions (Pettifor, 2017).
In response to socio-economic injustices, other pro-spirito-ecological concepts such as ubuntu (meaning “one for all and all for one”) and buen vivir (translated as “living well”) have gained prominence and garnered bureaucratic support (Moore et al., 2023). However, these concepts are frequently borrowed from cultures that have experienced colonization in the past. When introduced within a bureaucratic framework driven by capital motivations, often risk losing their fundamental essence and transformative potential.
Moore et al.’s (2023) approach to HP thinking, appears to grapple with a persistent conundrum between empirical and theoretical outcomes. On one hand, it seeks to develop practical real-world solutions through public and bureaucratic policy deliberations, considering traditional bureaucratic priorities like growth and GDP, and aligning prosperity thinking within the capital-driven system. On the other hand, it endeavours to theorise a system that prioritises collective well-being and social change within the very neoliberal system that underlies existing crises, potentially attempting to have the best of both worlds.
Secondly, my disagreement extends to the emphasis on technology-driven innovation as the solution. I argue that this perspective oversimplifies the complexities of GCs. Arguably, the approach is swayed by popular culture and strategically driven by capital investment. Furthermore, I challenge the notion that prosperity thinking should be confined within monetary constraints. If we are to genuinely explore prosperity as a concept, it is imperative that we break free from these limitations.
Lastly, I critique the personalisation of the HP model (ibid.). While there is merit in constructing a research-based model tailored to local contexts, individuals, and communities for practical implementation, I perceive a potential pitfall in this approach. An individual or community, constrained by their immediate experiences, may have a limited imaginative capacity to envision the full scope of prosperity. The representative or citizen scientist is inherently shaped by their epistemic, environmental, and cultural experiences, which can lead to a constrained perception of prosperity focused on immediate shortcomings rather than embracing a truly holistic sense.
UP differs contrastingly from the more empirical “universal basic prosperity” (Percy, 2021). UP is a theoretically utopian concept based in an ideal Islamic system. Conceptually, it can be referred to as a vision of “one-world prosperity” characterized by trans-national equality and justice. As previously stated, the UP approach is rooted in the divine and aligns with changes at the ecosystem level (mundo). The conceptual approach to HP (Moore et al., 2023) stems from inquiries into scope and scale and can be considered as permutations of origination and conclusion in the physical material environment. It often centres on well-being, wealth, desires — concepts that in veracity cater to individualistic needs. Even when addressing collective prosperity, it may lack a sense of a greater or higher purpose for achieving collective transformation and addressing collective well-being.
Table 1 Differentiating the three pathways to prosperity (Source: self)
| Prosperity Path | Definition | Need Fulfilled | Attributes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Econometric focused | The dominant bureaucratic system measures national prosperity primarily through GDP growth metrics | Addresses basic needs such as food, water, shelter, healthcare, and education | Target: individual; Level of self: individual; Level of abstraction: low |
| Holistic focused | An emerging perspective that incorporates the Prosperity Index, considering individual and community wellbeing above econometrics | Addresses needs for happiness, health, a sense of belonging, community, and a healthy environment | Target: individuals, relationships; Level of self: interpersonal; Level of abstraction: moderate |
| Universal focused | A multi-dimensional re-prioritization encompassing socio-political-economic aspects, aiming to achieve prosperity within a divine framework | Addresses the need for a higher divine purpose and moral values | Target: ecosystem; Level of self: collective; Level of abstraction: high |
Universal Prosperity
The early Islamic ethos witnessed a form of prosperity that upheld pluralism within a singular monotheistic belief system (Nadvi, 2012). An essential realization to derive from this is the universal paradigm inherent in this fundamental epistemic outlook. Historically, the Qur’an repeatedly emphasises the role of Islam within the Abrahamic monotheistic traditions (Qur’an 6:83–87), positioning it as the culmination of divine teachings for a comprehensive system (Murad, 2001). UP hinges on recognising and submitting to the will of God, with the core concept revolving around the belief in the oneness of God (tawhid), which serves as the cornerstone of all Islamic teachings and practices. The term “Islam” itself, translated in Arabic, is rooted in “submission” (Nasr, 2015). True prosperity (Chapra, 2000) emanates from contentment with God’s provisions and their responsible and ethical utilisation. Leading a righteous life, coupled with gratitude for the blessings (barakah) received, brings about spiritual, material, social, and capital growth. The concept of sustenance (rizq) being provided by God engraves the notion of submission, with God as the ultimate provider of prosperity. Sustenance encompasses not only material wealth but also knowledge, health, relationships, and all other blessings that transcend both this world and the afterlife. UP can be examined from various angles.
A noticeable contrast between prosperity in secular academia and UP is the plurality inherent in HP as opposed to the rigidity or singularity of the concept of UP in Islam. In the Qur’an, prosperity is sought and found on the straight path or “sirat-al-mustaqeem” (Esposito, 1991). Building on this context, prosperity thinking assumes a causal form. UP is rooted in the hereafter, with an underlying acceptance of predestination (qadr) and a clear distinction between actions in this world and their consequences in the next. UP is seen as a reward and is achieved through the outcome of actions rooted in higher morality as prescribed in revealed scripture. In the Qur’an, UP is associated with the concept of the kingdom of heaven (jannah) in the afterlife, while the opposite is described as a negative outcome. Summating, UP encompasses not only worldly well-being in personal, social, or financial aspects but also extends to the hereafter, which is pursued with diligent ihsan (excellence) (Beekun & Badawi, 1999). Ihsan refers to the pursuit of perfection in all aspects of life, involving the performance of one’s duties and responsibilities with sincerity, integrity, and excellence in work, relationships, and personal development. This concept affirms individual, collective and ecological prosperity.
Another perspective on UP underscores the importance of addressing challenges collectively and striving for collective well-being. The principle of public interest or the collective good, known as “maslahah” in Islam, plays a pivotal role in shaping various aspects of Islamic law and society. Maslahah is a foundational concept in Islamic fiqh (jurisprudence). Broadly fiqh signifies a deep understanding (Ramadan, 2006). In maslahah, the collective takes precedence over the individual. It involves enacting laws and policies that benefit society at large rather than serving narrow individual or group interests. Maslahah revolves around the objective of public value, emphasising the well-being and flourishing of individuals and communities. Islam places a strong emphasis on upholding justice and accountability for one’s actions while pursuing worldly wealth and profits (Mughal, 2015). It aligns with the goals of achieving collective welfare, aiming to address social and economic inequalities, with a strong emphasis on equity and justice, prioritising the common good over econometric parameters. Maslahah acknowledges the need for a delicate balance between individual rights and communal well-being and extends to sustainable ecological dimensions, providing comprehensive guidance and principles that encompass various aspects of human life, including social, economic, political, moral and ethical dimensions.
A third perspective on UP revolves around the concept of “falah” in Arabic. This term encompasses meanings such as salvation and well-being but, more broadly, signifies a victory that encompasses eternal prosperity. “Falah” comprises salvation and well-being, encompassing financial, social, emotional, and physical well-being in this world, and more so in the hereafter or the afterlife, achieved through the pursuit of heaven. “Falah” is a recurring concept, reminding believers of the path to eternal prosperity, mentioned five times daily in the call to prayer (azaan).
A structured model of UP demonstrates how various components of Islam coalesce to form a comprehensive path to prosperity. This model seamlessly integrates ethical foundations, spiritual contentment, mechanisms for wealth redistribution, environmental stewardship, economic ethics, values of social justice, knowledge-values integration, and the ability to transcend boundaries. It proposes a vision of prosperity that transcends the material realm, encompassing ecosystem-level prosperity. The empirical model is summarised into eight converging purviews within the Islamic framework. The model is built upon a solid ethical foundation rooted in the Qur’an and Hadeeth. Central to this model is the concept of Tawakkul (trusting in God’s plan), which reduces the allure of excessive consumerism, thereby fostering endogenous well-being over material accumulation.
Subsequent, through the holistic integration of knowledge (ilm) and values across various fields, this model enhances potential for experiential human intellect and spiritual insight in connection with the divine, informing decisions for positive impact with higher ethical considerations (Azram, 2012).
Further enhancing this model is the zakat (almsgiving) system, a mechanism for wealth redistribution that directly addresses poverty and inequality, making it a mandatory practice that underlines collective priorities (Qur’an 57:18). Each individual donates a part of his wealth to a charitable cause to purify the self.
Additionally, environmental stewardship (Qur’an 7:31), guided by the stewardship ethic aligns with sustainability and ecological harmony, emphasising responsible resource management for the sake of future generations.
This model also places a strong emphasis on economic ethics and transactions, notably through the prohibition of interest (riba), which is fundamental to a just economic ecosystem. Decisively, emphasises the moral law as the highest law (Qur’an 2:278–281) by a unilateral repudiation of interest payments (Hosein, 1997). Consequently, money must have intrinsic value, defined by Gold and Silver (Adinugraha, 2013) and not be subject to the principles of demand and supply. Money does not constitute a market of its own (Choudhury & Hussain, 2005). And markets are for Goods and Services.
Moreover, the UP model champions social security and welfare by upholding the rights of the marginalised, contributing to the creation of an inclusive and prosperous society (Nadvi, 2012). Lastly, the concept of one-world (ummah) fosters a sense of global collective cooperation, transcending cultural and national boundaries, and contributing to global socio-ecological action. This model thus encompasses a comprehensive approach to UP that is not only ethically grounded but also globally oriented. These concepts multifaceted in their own nature, come to define a path to prosperity that transcends dimensions, that affirms a greater purpose in a finality and take on a much larger mission, one that upends econometric and materialistic individualisation.
Figure 4 Visual Representation of the Universal Prosperity Model (Source: self) 
Holistic Prosperity
HP represents a significant departure from the conventional focus on econometric wealth. HP underscores the need to redefine our understanding of prosperity and questions the sustainability of exponential growth within the limitations of a finite planet (Moore et al., 2023). HP places a strong emphasis on humane, social, and well-being aspects as fundamental indicators of national prosperity (Moore, 2015). While there is no universally agreed-upon definition, HP, generally denotes a state of flourishing, and overall satisfaction with one’s quality of life. It can be encapsulated by the term “the good life”, which encompasses a wide range of socio-economic considerations (Moore & Woodcraft, 2019).
In the process of re-thinking prosperity, HP considers collective knowledge from diverse epistemic, philosophical, cultural, and economic perspectives. It recognises that different cultures and societies may prioritise various dimensions of prosperity based on their unique values and circumstances, acknowledging that this concept is subject to evolving societal norms, cultural shifts, and changing environmental considerations. HP also acknowledges that the meaning of prosperity can vary significantly among individuals and communities, influenced by diverse factors such as culture, geography, and ethnicity. This approach emphasises the need for extensive research to develop tailored prosperity models specific to societies and individuals, reflecting the ideals of well-being within their respective locales and works with citizen scientists to do so (Moore et al., 2023).
Furthermore, HP places a strong emphasis on social capital, the fostering of resilient and supportive communities, and the promotion of social connections. It highlights the significance of building and maintaining strong social networks and relationships, recognising that the quality of connections within families, communities, and broader social circles contributes significantly to emotional well-being and a sense of belonging.
In alignment with the interconnectedness of people, profit, and the planet, this perspective encourages responsible and sustainable practices that ensure the long-term viability of ecosystems and safeguard the welfare of both present and future generations. An example of a metric for assessment is the Prosperity Index (ibid.). Additionally, the United Nations’ Human Development Index (HDI) offers a comprehensive measure of development by considering life expectancy, education, and income. This approach to prosperity thinking underscores the importance of adopting a more comprehensive and inclusive vision of well-being and progress in our ever-evolving world.
Econometric Growth
Prosperity is often equated with one’s financial wealth, perpetuating the notion that prosperity is synonymous with EG. The pursuit of EG is closely tied to the use of GDP as the primary indicator to measure societal progress. This perspective has been the prevailing approach and is deeply ingrained in the understanding of both public and private bureaucratic institutions worldwide, traditionally guiding wellbeing policy considerations related to job creation and employment (ibid.). This perspective places significant emphasis on the accumulation of wealth and fosters a culture centred around wealth creation and entrepreneurial endeavours. Within this paradigm, the key indicators of societal well-being often revolve around consumption, and access to goods and services, and overall improvement in living standards within the context of financial and economic activities.
EG is widely accepted as the dominant economic framework by both private and public institutions, placing significant emphasis on GDP growth metrics and consumption as the primary measures of progress. This approach has resulted structures apparent by private wealth accumulation and significant economic disparities, giving dominion to private influence in public affairs, firmly embedding them within the socio-economic fabric (Fichtner et al., 2017).
It is essential to acknowledge that this economic pursuit has triggered significant challenges in recent decades, with one of the most notable downturns being the global financial crisis of 2008. This crisis unveiled the inherent risks associated with prioritizing EG. It became evident that this economic-focused thinking, often accompanied by a “greed is good” mentality, leads to individual gains at the collective expense of social, ecological, and epistemic values.
Similarities and Fundamental Differences in Pathways
From a systems perspective, in the context of thinking and system design for prosperity and inclusive change, it’s important to recognise that both EG and HP constructs are not mutually exclusive perspectives. Firstly, both EG and HP originate from an individualist view of secular thought. Secondly, while HP goes beyond EG, HP essentially is dependent on econometric factors as part of its competence. Here, UP takes an umbrella position that captures HP and EG both, encompassing divine, social, economic, political, ecological, and ecosystem dimensions.
Figure 5 Illustrating Overlap of Prosperity Pathways (Source: self)
In their collective relation, as prosperity thinking moves upward in the system, it becomes more abstract and qualitative. UP, HP and EG are interconnected in their system-level focus, and their impact at micro, macro and mundo levels within individuals, society and ecosystem.
All three paradigms, UP, HP, and EG, in theory aim for achieving social progress for all members of society. While EG focuses on employment opportunity, HP focuses on personal wellbeing and social aspects. UP adds to the concepts of HP and EG a higher sense of morality and purpose, disrupting from individualistic thinking to inherently embrace collectivism. UP encompasses both HP and EG, providing them with a global-level framework for prosperity beyond the material dimension. By placing the moral law as the highest law, UP-perspective places significant emphasis on reducing inequalities, addressing systemic injustices through a morally aligned framework.
Systemically, HP and EG are vital, but their scope is limited to visible material implications. The argument here is that, while pragmatically optimistic, these pathways can sometimes lead to deviations into capitalist neo-strategies that attempt to balance both focuses. Both of these foci, and their interconnectedness, are important when addressing GCs, especially under the overarching principles of UP grounded in IP. In this scenario, UP guides and streamlines EG and HP at micro and macro-level instruments and institutions.
Collectively, an individual-centric perspective of prosperity focuses on personal growth, autonomy, and the pursuit of one’s passions and goals. The EG approach centres on national economic interests, systemically promoting a focus on prosperity grounded in individualistic material accumulation. On the more socially inclined side of the spectrum, the HP perspective emphasises self-actualisation, the ability to lead a fulfilling life according to one’s values. HP views cultural and spiritual traditions as sources of contentment, spiritual fulfilment, and inner peace. HP, from this perspective, is achieved through strong community relationships, ethical living, and a sense of purpose beyond economic gain. Plurality tailored to specific locale, represents positive meso-level actions. UP seeks to realign thinking on a global scale, impacting all levels of the system, from the individual to the group, society, and the ecosystem, drawing teachings and principles from divinity.