#Title

Reversing the deficit of hope
Young individuals are confronting a set of profound philosophical challenges in a world still reeling from the pandemic. Is it possible for them to realistically envision a brighter future while the global economy is in turmoil, and wars, conflicts, and political violence have taken centre-stage? Is it possible to maintain hope when even advanced nations are struggling to ensure basic needs for their citizens? Must they bear the burden of rectifying historic policy shortcomings, or should those in ivory towers be trusted to amend their own failures? Have the economic and political frameworks championed by our predecessors paved a path for our collective triumph or downfall?
Amidst these uncertainties, an underlying question warrants introspection: How can young people rekindle the societal embers of hope?
Exploring a path that actively promotes, protects, and preserves hope in society via public policy interventions deserves consideration. Taking a step back, the baseline goal within any policymaking ecosystem is, or ideally should be, to ensure a robust understanding of, and response to, the prevailing mood and needs of the public. This undertaking must surpass rhetorical surface-level gestures aimed at boosting public trust towards governments on paper. In particular, it requires the incorporation of policy visions that not only resonate with millennials and Gen X, but are also largely shaped by them.
But when have we truly centred the youth in the policymaking cycle? Is it not true that, despite their extensive experience in civil service or politics, those designing public policies often fail to fully embrace the perspectives of younger individuals? Implementing age limits for elected representatives is an idea that has received traction for this very reason. While enforcing such restrictions may not be universally accepted on rational grounds, the origin of this proposal stems from an undeniable truth: older generations have navigated different times, contexts, and circumstances, moulding an image of the “common good” that fundamentally differs from how today’s youth envisions it.
Circling back to the notion of hope, conventional wisdom might label it as a sentimental, fleeting feeling, removed from the realities of our world. However, a few social scientists are trying to paint an advanced empirical narrative: hope is not just an emotion, but a quantifiable driver of decision-making. Emotions, it turns out, define a range of human choices. We see this in our everyday lives. Thankfully, economics, a discipline that, in fairness, is not meant to have all the answers but rather serves as a framework or channel to organise human thinking, is incorporating behavioural concepts, evolving much like a living, breathing, and adaptable field.
Making a distinction early on is important. Hope is not simply a synonym for optimism. Optimism is the broad belief that circumstances will improve, while hope digs deeper, calibrating on the conviction that an individual has the power to bring about that improvement. The latter aspect is what we, as an international community, find hard to nurture, particularly as young people often feel powerless about their futures.
On the other hand, the study of well-being within economics has prioritised aspects like life satisfaction. While such dimensions somewhat overlap with hope, they do not fully encompass its essence, which is acutely rooted in individual agency and its potential to influence life outcomes. Economics has long favoured the notion of the homo economicus, a theoretical person who acts out of self-interest and possesses complete knowledge of their surroundings. Within this paradigm, emotional or virtuous considerations such as hope were sidelined. Economic models were based on a rational and self-interested human caricature—deliberately overlooking the role of emotions.
However, there is a counter-argument making rounds in academia. Driven by heterodox approaches, including but not limited to behavioral economics, there is a growing emphasis on the interplay between emotion, subjectivity, and individual choices. Concepts like anticipatory feelings, consumer confidence, and aspirations have found their way into policy research. Consider the expected utility theory for a moment. It suggests that human beings base decisions on anticipated outcomes. Yet, research indicates that this is only part of the overarching human decision-making cycle: our past memories, experiences, and anticipations contribute in determining what we choose to do or not to do.
A salient tangent to the discussion on hope is the concept of aspirations, which captures our desires and objectives. Our aspirations are influenced by our environment and societal benchmarks. They are a reflection of both our inherent desires and external pressures, fluctuating between what we want and what society expects us to achieve. Taking on a macro viewpoint, hope has been positioned as a form of psychological capital. Within business economics, it is perceived as a driving force that can enhance employee productivity, resilience, and overall well-being. It is not a stretch to argue that hope can be a catalyst for economic behavior, propelling individuals towards innovation, risk-taking, and business investments.
Yet, the vocabulary around hope in economics remains a tad muddled. Terms such as optimism, expectations, and confidence are used interchangeably, but they are not identical in meaning. Hope is multidimensional. It combines desire, a probability assessment, and a recognition of intrinsic uncertainty. It is not just about what we want, but also about the perceived hurdles on the path to achieving it.
The bottom line being that, without hope, we are nothing. To hope, one must believe in their own power to effect positive change, but such agency seems absent today. The question then becomes: how can we tackle this prevailing deficit of hope? Honestly, I do not know. But what I do know is that this would entail addressing the tangible—redesigning, and not simply reforming, our economic and political ecosystems by correcting historic policy failures—while concurrently nurturing the intangible, by validating and boosting the psychological well-being, hope, and aspirations of the youth.
Pushing the boundaries of economics as a discipline and redefining our understanding of human beings as economic actors—beyond utilitarian models—is an academic area which, when more thoroughly researched and analysed by social scientists, can undeniably inform policymakers about how we can reverse the deficit of hope and empower the younger generation to take ownership of a world that is very much theirs to shape.
Views expressed in this article represent the author’s personal opinions and do not reflect the views or opinions of any organisation, institution or entity associated with him.
To hope, one must believe in their own power to effect positive change, but such agency seems absent today. The question then becomes: how can we tackle this prevailing deficit of hope? Honestly, I do not know. But what I do know is that this would entail addressing the tangible—redesigning, and not simply reforming, our economic and political ecosystems by correcting historic policy failures—while concurrently nurturing the intangible, by validating and boosting the psychological well-being, hope, and aspirations of the youth.