Ernst Schumacher and ‘Buddhist Economics’

Ernst Schumacher was an economist, and the coiner of the term ‘appropriate technology.’ He had some ‘radical’ (that is, ahead of their time) ideas about the growth of large-scale, often inhuman industrial technologies. Yes, they respond to society’s drive for efficiency, but they create many problems as well, and in the end, in our need to try to control them, do they become our masters? Schumacher saw that, like technology, economics was value-laden. What if, he wondered, different cultures had different economic systems? What if, for instance, there was such a thing as ‘Buddhist economics’ (which of course, there isn’t, but what if)? What would it look like? Our Western economic system clearly reflects cultural values not shared by all.

Let’s look at Buddhist economics:

Views on work

In the west, we often see work as necessary evil, as workers. Employers may see it as an item of cost. The idea situation for employers is to have output without employees (automation), and for employees to have income without work (welfare?).

From the Buddhist perspective, work has value in and of itself. It is a source of personal fulfillment, livelihood, and community. There would be no appreciation of leisure without work, of night without day, of good without evil. Schumacher illustrates with the carpet loom, a manual-powered tool for weaving fabric, versus the power loom, which according the Schumacher automates the process, but also ‘does the human part of the work.’ There’s nothing left but to push buttons.

What’s important here? The output, goods produced, or the quality of the work? In the McDonaldization example, we should know the answer. Another example: During the steep rise in energy prices in California a while back, aluminum companies played a big role. They located in the Northwest because they need massive amounts of electricity, and the Northwest has some of the cheapest electricity rates in the world (via hydropower). They still insisted on cheaper rates, as good customers. When the price crisis hit, these companies such as Alcoa, made more money by selling off their surplus, subsidized power, than by producing aluminum. They actually shut down operations. Workers stayed home, were paid to do nothing. This turns the Buddhist concept of work on its head–money for nothing, so to speak.

Full employment

In the West: The capitalist system depends on surplus labor, keeping wages low, competitive, and allowing businesses to better control costs. Unemployment compensation, social welfare is a necessity where surplus labor exists; if we depend on a certain number of people needing (but not finding) work to keep wages down, we should compensate for that those who can’t find work-provide them money to keep their standard of living; if we can afford unemployment (for ‘social stability’), then we need to provide welfare compensation.

Buddhist view: Full employment would be the basis of economic planning. Anything less than that would be seen as a failure to meet the needs of the people in society.

Consumption

In the West: This is how we measure standard of living; the ones with the most are the best off, right? (fossil fuels have allowed for huge consumption – U.S. with 5% of population consumes 20% of world’s resources). In the West, land, labor and capital are the means, and consumption is the end, the goal, the prize.

Buddhist perspective: Using non-renewable resources is parasitism. Consumption is but a means to an end; the goal is balance between well-being, comfort; living more in harmony with the natural environment, in intimate contact. Renewable resources, living within one’s means, sustainable livelihood; simplicity–these are the things that matter. Consumption can actually serve as a distraction toward those goals. If we consider stress levels in agrarian societies, versus faster-paced high technology societies, it’s not clear that consumption buys happiness.

Economic production

In the West: efficiency, right? Doesn’t matter where it comes from, how we get it (look at WalMart). What are environmental effects of a global economic system of trade? Animals get raised, food produced here, but it may be processed in the Midwest, sent back via truck. Does this make sense? Think in global terms. What are the ‘hidden’ costs.

Buddhists: production locally, from local resources, living within the constraints of the local environment (when we consume, it has to come from somewhere-we dump, we create disorder somewhere else).

A note on violence. It comes with Western economic model. The dam project, strip mining, animal confinement, fossil fuels (cars, noise, accidents, death,–our way of life kills many more people), tobacco, etc. Consumption is the end, and we are consummate consumers – this is what we learn in school, at home! It’s okay to destroy a mountainside to mine coal, okay to destroy a valley to mine uranium, other minerals; okay to strip soil to do annual agriculture with heavy machinery;
Violence to nature leads to violence between people, according to Schumacher . . .

This should sound like McDonaldization, George Ritzer’s variant on sociologist Max Weber’s historical process of rationalization. Calculability, efficiency, control, predictability??? Western economics depends on them–it’s extremely rationalized.

So, what do these differences mean for technology and the environment??

Sustainable development–defined by the Brundtland Commission as meeting needs of current generations without sacrificing abilities of future generations to meet their needs. Is such development possible with the Western economic model, where consumption is key, and the source of wealth doesn’t really matter?

Was Schumacher describing something that exists, envisioning something that could exist, or writing a eulogy? The nation of Bhutan has tried to pursue a path more consistent with the concept of Buddhist Economics. They even try to measure ‘gross national happiness.’ Is it possible in an interconnected and violent world?