The global population grew from just under 1 billion in 1820 to 8 billion in 2024. That is 8 times as many people that need water, food, shelter, and other critical consumption goods to live a decent life. The population boom was largely enabled by technological innovation, including energy transitions, the agricultural revolution, and medical advances, which broke the “Malthusian spell” – the idea that population growth would outgrow its means of subsistence, leading to widespread poverty (Malthus, 1798). Throughout the past two centuries, the geographical composition of global population changed drastically. In 1820, 22% were Europeans, which has dropped to 11% in 2022. In 2022, 53% of global population lives in Asia, with only 11% being European. World population is expected to continue growing for another 50 or 60 years, reaching a peak of around 10.3 billion people in the mid-2080s (UN, 2024).

International migration is another factor shaping population trends for many countries around the world. The increasing share of older persons in the global population is another influential factor. The global percentage of people aged 65+ in 1990 was 6.1 and 9.8 in 2022 (World Bank, 2024). This demographic shift has implications for various aspects of society, including labour and financial markets, the demand for goods and services such as housing and social protection systems, as well as for family structures.

You can access the full global report here.

The world’s economy, which is commonly measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP), didn’t grow much for centuries. Then suddenly, the economy expanded more than hundredfold in the period from 1820 until now and global GDP per capita skyrocketed from $1,128 in 1820 to $15,461 in 2020 (real GDP per capita in 2011$, PPP converted) (Bolt & Van Zanden, 2024).

The “steady 2-3%” economic growth that many inhabitants of high-income nations grew accustomed too, is incredibly extraordinary from this long-run historical perspective. Moreover, while an annual growth rate of 2-3% might not sound so extreme, it is important to realise that this results in exponential growth over time. With a growth rate of 3% the total size of the economy doubles every 23 years. Do you think that the total size of the global economy can and should keep doubling roughly each generation? 

You can access the full global report here.

Technological advancements profoundly impacted the way that we live. For example, because it influenced food production. In the mid-19th century, 25 men were needed to harvest and thresh a ton of grain in a day, but today, a single person using a combine harvester can do it in just six minutes (Norberg, 2017). The invention of synthetic fertilizers in the 20th century further boosted yields, doubling or tripling them in some regions since 1960.

Today, nearly half of the global population depends on synthetic fertilizers for food (Erisman et al., 2008). Medical innovations such as the discovery of blood groups, penicillin, vaccines, and improved sanitation have also significantly increased life expectancy. The discovery of the existence of different blood groups in 1901 which enabled blood transfusion, is said to have saved more than 1 billion lives (ScienceHeroes.com, 2022).

You can access the full global report here.

Technological innovation fuelled globalisation, beginning with railways and coal-fired steamships that expanded global trade. In combination with innovations in communication technologies such as the development of an intercontinental telegraph network and the fax, and a lowering of trade tariffs this allowed the geographical separation of production and consumption, sometimes referred to as the First Unbundling (Baldwin, 2016).

With the rise of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in the late 20th century globalisation accelerated even further, enabling the international separation of companies – a process also known as the Second Unbundling. Globalisation stimulated economic growth in a number of ways including the facilitation of efficiency gains following specialization, increased competition, and economies of scale. As a consequence, a large share of global production shifted to regions where wages were lowest. These regions are often referred to as the Global South.

You can access the full global report here.

Nature has played, and continues to play, a critical role in the provisioning of food, energy, medicines, greatly impacting people’s wellbeing (IPBES, 2019). For centuries, people relied on wood, dried manure, muscle power, wind, and water mills for basic needs like heating, cooking, and grinding grains, with animals aiding in transportation. The Industrial Revolution marked a shift to more energy-dense fuels like coal, and later oil, gas, and renewable energy sources (Smil, 2017), driving major societal changes and boosting economic development.

By the 1950s, global development was accelerating faster than ever before – a period now referred to as the “Great Acceleration,” when human pressures on the Earth system sharply intensified (Steffen et al., 2015). Over the full 20th century, forest loss alone equalled the land area of the United States, reshaping landscapes, biodiversity, and climate (Ritchie, 2021).

You can access the full global report here.

The impact of changes in population, economy, technology, globalisation, and the environment, largely depends on institutional structures. The shift from ternary societies to ownership societies with individual property rights for example, has been very influential in determining how the key drivers impact different groups in society. While individual property rights increased, actual property ownership was still centralized among a small elite, keeping inequalities intact (Piketty, 2020).

The rise of democratic governance, which limits the executive power through mechanisms such as rule of law, an independent judiciary, and constitutionally protected civil liberties, is believed to improve the protection and effective realisation of human rights. Suffrage rights have seen a tremendous increase from 1820 until now, initially for men and later on for women too (Skaaning et al., 2024), positively affecting human agency.

Another influential institutional structure is the welfare state. Social security legislation started to occur in Northwestern Europe and the US after the formation of a working class demanding better working conditions. In 1900, merely 7,5% of countries had social protection measures for employment injury, in 2020 its 96.8% (International Labour Organization, 2020), greatly enhancing life satisfaction, especially for those at risk of income loss (Anderson & Hecht, 2015).

More recently, the trend of autocratisation stands out. The world has fewer democracies (88) than autocracies (91) for the first time in over 20 years. Nearly 3 out of 4 persons in the world (72%) now live in autocracies. This corresponds to alarming losses in freedom of expression, and less room for clean elections, freedom of associations, and rule of law (VDEM, 2025).

You can access the full global report here.

Overall, lives today are much better than two centuries ago, in every region. The AHDI, which combines health, education, material living standards, and political freedom, illustrates this clearly (Figure). Average life expectancy has more than doubled, from 28.5 years in 1820 to 72 years in 2022. Even in the regions with the lowest life expectancy, it now reaches around 60 years (OECD, 2014a; UNDP, 2024; Dattani et al., 2023). Education has also improved, with average schooling rising from 1 year in 1850 to 8 years in 2010, giving individuals more control over their lives (OECD, 2014a).

Material living standards have surged: GDP per capita grew over tenfold from $1,128 in 1820 to $15,461 in 2020 (2011$, PPP) (Bolt & Van Zanden, 2024). For the average person today, this translates to roughly 7–14 times more resources for food, shelter, clothing, medicine, and education, with higher quality and variety of products adding even more to wellbeing (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014). In industrialized countries, annual working hours have also dropped dramatically since the Industrial Revolution: from 60–90 hours per week in the 19th century to roughly 40 today (OECD, 2021a). This has profound impacts on time-use and wellbeing.

You can access the full global report here.

Between-country inequality, as measured by the ratio of the top 10% richest to bottom 50% countries, grew rapidly from 1820 to 1950. It continued at a slower pace until 1980, and has declined since then, largely due to China’s rise. Despite this decline, between-country inequality remains double that of 1820 and the gap between the 10 richest and poorest nations keeps increasing. Global income inequality has also worsened: in 1820: the top 10% earned 18 times more than the bottom 50%; by 2020, they earned 38 times more (Chancel et al., 2022). Within-country income inequality illustrates a different development trajectory, where the current level of inequality is similar to 1820.

However, within-country inequality did experience a decrease from 1900 until 1980. The World Wars and Great Depression hit people in the top of the wealth distribution the most (Collier, 1998; Piketty, 2014). Rising social spending and progressive taxation also played a role. With the rise of neoliberalism in the 80s, we see within-country income inequality start to rise again (Chancel et al., 2022).

You can access the full global report here.

In 1820, roughly 75% of the world population, about 756 million people, could not afford a tiny space to live, food that would not induce malnutrition, and some minimum heating capacity. This total number of persons living in extreme poverty in 1820 is almost identical to the estimate for 2018, which stands at 764 million people (OECD, 2021). When looking at relative poverty (the share of population living in poverty), it has decreased tremendously from over 70% to around 10% in 2018.

The fastest drop in the entire period takes place between 1995 and 2018 (OECD, 2021) (the OECD calculations are based on the cost of basic needs (CBN) method, which calculates poverty lines for every year and country separately). While this is great improvement, there is still much progress to be made.

When looking at less extreme poverty, to the share of people living on less than $8.30 a day – a threshold set by the World Bank to be representative of the definitions of poverty adopted in upper-middle-income countries – the numbers are quite different. Moving from 70% of global population living in poverty in 1970 to 45% in 2025 (World Bank Poverty and Inequality Platform, 2025).

You can access the full global report here.

A common way to look at environmental pressures affecting wellbeing is by consideration of “planetary boundaries”. Planetary boundaries refer to the physical and biological limits of the global Earth system that should be respected to maintain planet’s human-friendly living conditions. The planetary boundaries concern: Novel Entities, Stratospheric ozone depletion, Atmospheric aerosol loading, Ocean acidification, Biogeochemical flows, Freshwater use, Land-system change, Biosphere integrity, and Climate change. Currently, seven out of nine planetary boundaries are being transgressed, suggesting that Earth is now well outside of the safe operating space for humanity (PBScience, 2025).

There is political and technological developments that provide some hope for the future – for example, the increasing speed at which renewable energy is adopted (IAE, 2023) – but it is very clear that over the past two centuries, the socioeconomic system has been doing more environmental harm than good. Currently, there’s no signs of sufficient global decoupling of environmental impacts from economic growth (Freire-González et al., 2024; Parrique et al., 2019).

You can access the full global report here.

Of course “it depends”. We believe there is an important role to play for institutions, as they determine how developments in other key drivers such as technology and nature affect wellbeing outcomes. Given the central role of institutions, the future is not predetermined, which is in principle good news. We have the possibility to act. Are we able to create inclusive and sustainable progress? 

Recent rises in conflicts, democratic decline, and polarisation are alarming developments in that sense. While the current era needs global cooperation and local action to guide us through profound transitions to address challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss, growing wealth inequality, and rising migration, the (formal and informal) institutions that are important to tackle these challenges are under pressure.