Building systemic resilience, productivity and well-being: a Mental Wealth perspective

Broadening the lens of productivity

Intrinsic to the concept and measurement of Mental Wealth is a broader perspective of human productivity (encompassing the domains of economic and social productivity), and an understanding that these domains are inextricably linked (box 1). Under the Mental Wealth framework, socially productive activities include unpaid charity work, volunteering, participation in community groups and organised civic engagement, the education and care of children, environmental restoration and caring for country, and developing physical and institutional social infrastructure; essentially any activity that contributes to strengthening civic life. Richer depictions of social production and its mental health and social value are articulated elsewhere.29 Recognising the value of social production for national prosperity counters the marginalising and exclusionary effects (on caregivers, the unemployed, the disabled and older adults) of only valuing contributions made to the formal, monetised economy. Recent reports highlight that the greatest contributors to social production are those that are traditionally undervalued by the formal economy. For example, Americans aged 65 and over contributed US$319.22 billion in social production through voluntary work and community building activities, the largest contribution of any age group.30 31

Social productivity acts as a temporary stabiliser to disruptive events by redistributing resources between the economic and social arenas and mobilising workforces.29 32 33 During the COVID-19 pandemic, neighbourhood initiatives and ‘Buy Local’ campaigns supported small businesses.34 In the aftermath of the 2004 Indian Ocean Boxing Day tsunami, grass-roots mobilisation and community networks supported the recovery of small-sized and medium-sized enterprises.35 In the Australian bushfires of 2019–2020, communities rallied to save local businesses and houses from damage, and in the recovery phase established campaigns such as ‘Empty Esky’ and ‘Spend With Them’ to support regional business revival. Maintaining adequate levels of social productivity creates readily deployable workforce surge capacity able to mount an effective and coordinated response against local, national and global threats. Volunteer and community mobilisation have long played a critical role in successful disease control and elimination campaigns globally, from smallpox eradication in the 1960s and 1970s to the COVID-19 pandemic, where volunteers mobilised to support contact tracing, phone hotlines, childcare for frontline workers, and awareness campaigns in efforts to control transmission and expedite the reopening of businesses.36–38

The maintenance of social productivity during periods of economic stability and expansion can also increase access to employment39 and enhance economic productivity through access to additional networks, resources, opportunities, informal skills training and mentorship, the social development of intellectual property and intergenerational knowledge transmission.40 Therefore, the relationship between civil society and the business sector is one of mutual dependence, with economic and social productivity being two sides of the same coin. Both are required to achieve multi-sector resilience.

The importance of brain capital

The concept of Mental Wealth also calls attention to brain capital. This concept has been the focal point for a novel research and policy agenda underpinned by a broad range of disciplines concerned with brain health. Brain capital is a new asset class that recognises brain skills and brain health as fundamental drivers of the economy. Brain skills (or mental capital) include cognitive, emotional, and collective intelligence and creativity, while brain health includes mental health and well-being which affect the ability to acquire and deploy mental capital, as well as neurological disorders which fundamentally change social and economic productive potential.1 29 Worldwide, it is estimated that the cost of lost productivity attributable to depression and anxiety alone is US$1.15 trillion per year.41 However, such estimates fail to adequately capture the counterfactual; namely, the potential increase in innovation and collective productivity (beyond individual absenteeism and presenteeism) that may have been possible with optimal population brain health.

Much of the economic discourse regarding the relationship between brain capital and labour productivity has been unidirectional, focussing on how boosting brain capital has benefits for productivity. The ‘happy-productive worker thesis’ has deep roots in the organisational psychology literature and posits that individuals with higher levels of well-being tend to be more productive.42 43 The evidence to some extent supports this thesis.44 Representing a potentially ‘low energy, low material way of raising labour productivity’44 this thesis gave rise to a thriving corporate ‘wellness market’ in the late 20th century. In 2021, the Corporate Wellness market globally was valued at US$54.1 billion and is expected to reach US$93.4 billion by 2028.45 However, fitness memberships, mindfulness training, on-site yoga and workplace health promotion are inadequate to tackle the challenge of declining productivity. ‘Add on’ programmes of this nature leave problematic structures in place. Evidence additionally suggests a converse relationship, namely, that macroeconomic structures and organisational strategies engaged to continuously grow labour productivity can in the long run reduce job quality and circle back to negatively influence worker well-being and productivity, thereby countering workplace well-being promotion efforts.46

A recent review of the literature emphasised the potential negative relationship between a pursuit of continuous growth in labour productivity and worker well-being, resulting from increases in alienation, job demands, pervasive technology that blurs the boundary between work and home life, and industrial relations reforms that increase insecure work.44 Higher job demands have been associated with greater anxiety, work-related family conflict and burnout. Job insecurity has been shown to have detrimental effects on job satisfaction, mental health and well-being, and increases psychosomatic complaints.47–49 Conversely, improvements in job security have been associated with stepwise improvements in mental health scores.50 In addition to the work environment, the broader social environment in which people live can have a significant influence on brain capital. Economic structures and policies drive interconnected disparities in income, wealth, education, health and opportunities.51 52 This can lead to increased rates of violent crime, substance misuse, domestic violence, child abuse and neglect, inadequate housing, inadequate mental healthcare systems and poor education quality, resulting in significant functional impairment that erodes productive potential—both in the near term and intergenerationally.53–58 Additionally, globalisation, while offering opportunities, can also bring with it resource over-exploitation, environmental destruction, and cultural dissonance, exacerbating poverty, polarisation, and social unrest, and eroding social cohesion.59 60 These structural factors can have a profound impact on brain capital and productivity.

In sum, there is a reciprocal dependence between brain capital and productivity. Social and economic productivity are needed to maintain brain capital, and investments in brain capital are needed to boost productivity. However, when productivity demands (be they economic or social61 62) exceed brain capital capacity, resilience can be undermined. This thesis gives rise to several questions: (1) where does the threshold lie beyond which demands in productivity growth exceed brain capital capacity, thereby reducing resilience, (2) can the threshold be raised by technological advances, reductions in inequality, and investments in brain and social capital infrastructures and (3) what is the optimal balance between economic and social productivity at a macro level needed to support multisystem resilience? These are important questions for further empirical exploration. The balance required in any context will depend on prevailing circumstances, especially legacies concerning the role of the state, business and civil society in the organisation of production and consumption and the arrangements determining the distribution of income and wealth. In thinking through ways to achieve balance and enhance resilience, table 1 (and online supplemental file 1) highlights four domains requiring attention: investing in brain capital, guarding against mass unemployment and productivity loss, fostering social productivity and establishing a legal framework for resilience. Systems modelling and simulation is additionally proposed to explore the viability of the recommended strategies in different political and economic contexts and how best to allocate resources across them to build resilience and foster the Mental Wealth of nations.63 A paradigm shift in our understanding of resilience is imperative. By embracing a transdisciplinary Mental Wealth perspective and nurturing a nation’s most critical asset (brain capital), we deepen and enrich our capacity to evolve and adapt in a more stable, cohesive, prosperous and sustainable way.