Dr David Cliff explores a lesser-known addictive behaviour, that is arguably more ubiquitous and pervasive than some of the well known ones.
“Shopping is an addiction,” reported the BBC recently. The headline captures a growing truth: compulsive buying is increasingly pathologised, yet the wider structural context is often ignored.
We live in an economic environment where credit is abundant, debt is normalised, and consumption is meticulously engineered through sophisticated marketing. Individuals who accumulate excessive debt are not anomalies, but functioning participants in a system that depends on their spending. Global capitalism, while a driver of innovation and growth, also creates sharp inequalities. In the UK, the 50 wealthiest families now control more wealth than the poorest 50% – around 34 million people.
The problem is often framed as personal weakness, poor control and self-blame.
Therapists provide treatments for those who struggle with compulsive buying, and the NHS does its best to respond. But this focus on pathology obscures a systemic reality: industries and markets design the very conditions that lead people into harmful cycles, while the costs of repair are shouldered by public services.
This is more than a matter of personal choice. It is a systemic displacement of responsibility – profits remain private, while the burden of treatment and recovery is socialised. Algorithmic advertising, loyalty schemes, and buy?now?pay?later schemes nudge citizens into debt while maintaining the illusion of personal agency.
Here we might look to Pigouvian taxation, a concept introduced by economist Arthur Pigou. Pigouvian taxes aim to internalise the “negative externalities” of market activity – that is, the hidden social costs not captured in the sticker price. Familiar examples include carbon taxes for pollution or levies on tobacco to fund healthcare. Applied to consumer culture, a Pigouvian tax could ensure that industries whose marketing and credit mechanisms create mental?health and financial burdens contribute directly to the public services that manage those consequences. Such an approach would rebalance the equation, shifting part of the responsibility back to those who design and profit from harmful practices. Yet to date, no political leader has found the courage to advance such measures.
The real issue is agency. On the surface, individuals believe they are choosing freely. But the framework of their choices has been pre?engineered – by algorithms that target vulnerability, by design systems that exploit cognitive bias, and by financial products structured to encourage dependency.
Philosophical traditions from Stoicism to Buddhism remind us that true strength lies not in accumulation but in detachment, generosity, and simplicity. Repairing, sharing, and consuming less are not only ecological imperatives; they are ways of reclaiming dignity and autonomy.
Theodor Adorno warned that rational systems adapt incrementally while often entrenching the inertia they claim to challenge. Today, consumer culture reflects that critique: endless interventions – more apps, more nudges, more therapies – while the underlying framework remains untouched.
We need a different approach, the climate change crisis alone demands it.
At Gedanken, we encourage leaders to think differently. It is not only about “thinking outside the box,” but about asking what the box itself is: who built it, why, and whether it still serves the common good.
We partner with leaders – whether in major organisations or local communities – who are serious about making meaningful change. Change not for novelty’s sake, but grounded in vision, responsibility, and human flourishing.
gedanken.co.uk