Post-Neoclastic Paradigm of Economic Resilience

Abstract

The article examines theoretical and practical shift away from neoclassical orthodoxy in three European peripheral regions – Scotland, Wales, and Ireland – each of which has recently adopted distinct alternative economic frameworks. Scotland has embraced the wellbeing economy model, prioritising quality of life, social justice and environmental sustainability over GDP growth. Wales has advanced the foundational economy doctrine, focusing on everyday sectors such as retail, care, housing and utilities, and aiming to anchor capital locally. Ireland, in response to its overreliance on foreign direct investment and concentrated corporate tax revenues, is developing a resilience/antifragile economy strategy that seeks not merely to withstand external shocks but to become stronger as a result of volatility. The analysis reveals that these approaches constitute more than a set of policy instruments; they represent a meta-theoretical rupture with neoclassical axioms. While mainstream economics relies on methodological individualism, homo economicus, and self-regulating markets leading to Pareto efficiency, the alternative doctrines adopt concepts of bounded rationality, embeddedness, and socially constructed market institutions. The state’s role shifts from a minimal “night watchman” correcting market failures to an active cocreator of markets oriented toward longterm wellbeing and localisation. The paper systematically compares the three models across several dimensions – objective function, nature of growth, market efficiency, rationality, risk, and institutional mechanisms. It finds that the core distinction lies in redefining economic success: instead of maximising production and allocative efficiency, the new paradigm prioritises the reproduction of living conditions, household liveability, and systemic resilience. The conclusion identifies the emergence of a post-neoclassical paradigm centered on the capacity to absorb disruptions without social degradation. Further progress requires developing composite wellbeing indicators beyond GDP and embedding long-term criteria into fiscal and regulatory governance.