Democracy is about people: Are we paying enough attention to the brain?

In a new 34-country mega-study just published in Nature Medicine, weaker democratic institutions were associated with accelerated brain aging. In the context of global population aging and democracy decline, this study clearly suggests that democracy scholars and public authorities have an opportunity to engage to support healthier brain aging trajectories at both the individual and population levels.

Breakthroughs in science and industry have often come when previously unconnected fields of knowledge are brought into conversation with each other. For example, behavioral economics arose when psychology reshaped classical economics to better explain real-world decision-making, and modern public health advanced when epidemiology joined forces with urban design to reveal how the built environment directly shapes population well-being. As we seek to move beyond the common diagnoses of the declines in democracy and look for a solution, a new connection between the emerging field of brain capital research and democracy has the potential to allow us to take the big step needed to arrest the decline and treat the causes.

Brain capital is a complex concept that takes into account an individual’s knowledge, skills, and brain health. It recognizes that mental health, cognitive and emotional skills, and lifelong learning drive economic, social, and democratic resilience. Unlike traditional human capital, which emphasizes productivity, brain capital places mental well-being and creative capacity at the core of the economy. The concept is gaining prominence, as a recent World Economic Forum-McKinsey Health Institute Brain Economy Insights Report has provided a comprehensive overview of brain capital dynamics across society. The complex connections between brain capital and social and economic processes mean that it has both strong explanatory power in analyses of democracy and is an organizing concept for policy interventions to support democratic resilience.

New research published via the Global Brain Capital Index (BCI) study shows several important trends with strong correlations with democratic performance and some shared causal relationships. First, brain capital is an often-overlooked driver of economic performance: countries with higher brain capital experience stronger economic growth. Second, global brain capital is fragile: the global Brain Capital Index peaked around 2013 but declined after 2015 (see Figure 1), suggesting that geopolitical instability, economic shocks, and public‑health crises have undermined brain health and learning opportunities. 

Figure 1: Global Brain Capital Index Over Time

Third, inequality persists, but convergence is possible: high‑income countries lead in brain capital, but the gap is closing as lower‑income countries invest in health and education. OECD countries outperform non‑OECD countries, highlighting the role of social protection and governance. Fourth, enabling environments are sensitive to shocks: the enablers index peaked before falling after 2018, reflecting how recessions and pandemics can reduce health expenditure, disrupt education and strain cultural and social resources. Fifth, brain health is under strain: the Brain Health Index shows a downward trend, indicating increasing burdens of mental illness and neurological disorders. Conversely, the Brain Skills Index is rising but remains uneven due to disparities in education and innovation capacity. Sixth, as with democracy, income alone does not determine brain capital: cross‑sectoral policies—healthcare, education, labour markets and environmental conditions—matter more than GDP per capita. Seventh, systemic resilience is critical: strong institutions, resilient enabling environments and inclusive policies support a resilient brain economy. Figure 2 demonstrates the inverse correlation between brain capital and political instability. Brain capital measures could be used as a new policy compass that goes beyond GDP to guide investments into health, education, and innovation.

Figure 2: Inverse Correlation between Brain Capital and Political Instability

The links between brain capital, aging, and democratic decline deserve more of our attention. For example, new cross-national analysis from Augustin Ibanez and colleagues has demonstrated the close links between democracy, the environment, and brain health. In a large cross‑national study measuring biobehavioral age gaps in 40 countries they found that physical exposures (such as air quality), social exposures (socioeconomic and gender inequality, migration) and--most notably for our present interests--sociopolitical exposures (levels of representation, party freedom, suffrage, elections and democracy) were all associated with accelerated aging. These aggregated physical, socioeconomic and political factors explained far more variance in brain aging than individual exposures. Moreover, biobehavioral age gaps—a measure of biological aging—have been found to be linked to societal values such as subjective wellbeing, social life, perceived agency, and institutional trust. Each of these has also been shown to have an impact on democratic performance.

The science involved in studies of this nature is quite complex, but the larger picture that emerges is one in which there are important interdependencies that policy responses should address. Namely, democracy requires a high level of brain capital: we cannot make good collective decisions if our individual stocks of brain capital are low. However, the research also identified democracy as a supporting condition to maintaining brain capital: we lose more brain capital when democracy declines.

It is often said that we need a ‘whole of society’ approach to address specific and urgent challenges our nations face, such as climate change, conflict, and pandemics. Similarly, we argue that identifying the most promising actions to take to address global democratic decline will require a ‘whole of science’ approach. Democracy practitioners need to be able to synthesize complementary findings from the social sciences and natural sciences. We need to be able to pair what we are learning about the determinants and contributions of brain capital with what we know about the economic and social drivers of democratic performance. In this way, we can move toward durable interventions that support the individuals and collectivities that create, participate in, and sustain democracy. As Facundo Manes, Argentine neuroscientist and politician, has argued: ‘Democracy does not live in buildings. It lives in people, and people live in brains.’