Economics that take into account sustainability

I am not an economist and, today, in our global world governed not only by factual economic imperatives, but also by an ideology in which economic thought frames build the dominant worldview (the idea that, to understand the world and to act in it, we have to think mainly from an economic perspective), I experience that this does not really allow me to do theology to the full. Particularly as I think (and I am under the impression that I am not the only one thinking in this way) that the dominant economic way of thinking and, therefore, the dominant way of organizing our world, puts us on a destructive course. The key issue for me, here, is “sustainability”: how can we order and organize our world in such a way that life be sustainable, not only in our own life-time, but also for future generations of human and living beings. How do we have to think, also very practically, to make that possible?

As I see it now, there are four main and interconnected fields where I think we have to build up some critical thinking – and maybe theologians can help a bit.

(1) How do we measure what is worthwhile to us, in the awareness that, in a kind of perverse feedback, our instruments of measure will determine (become a definition) of what is worthwhile? I have the impression that in many areas financial gain is the main criterion to gauge the success of activities. Money is the stick that helps us to measure what is worthwhile. And, of course, that is true to some extent: I am willing to pay a lot of money for objects or services that are important and worthwhile to me, as I expect to be paid for services I render. However, I also sense two difficulties. — (a) What about those things or services that we value enormously, but that don’t seem to be easily expressed or measured on the scale of money: the care mothers and fathers take for their children, love and friendship, air and water as common goods, the little stone on my desk that I like to take in my hands as it reminds me of an important moment in my life, etc. — (b) What about the observable fact that many of us, sometimes quite unconsciously, begin to take for worthwhile that which costs a lot of money or those activities which make us financially wealthier? The real worthwhile thing seems to have become: how can I earn or obtain as much “money” as possible? — I have been wondering whether we should not also use a more life-true instrument of measurement, “time spent and given“: time cannot be piled up or accumulated, it is a dimension of our life itself and it doesn’t survive us, we have a limited amount of it (although we do not know that amount precisely), … Time is very different from money. Our (personal and societal) fixation on money may mislead us with regard to what is worthwhile. The fact that we can aim at always having more money (which is not the case for time) blurs our understanding of the concept of “sustainability”.

(2) What do we mean when we say “growth”? Some tough discernment (both individually and as a society) is needed here: what do we consider as improvement of our lives? what do we aim at? how do we measure (again the issue of measurement) growth? The question of growth also touches on the relationships between individuals and their societies, between individuals and their environment: what are the consequences of individual growth for others, for societies, for the environment?

(3) Have we learned to think in terms of “scarcity”? One of the first things I was taught about economics is its concern with how we deal with scarce goods. But I have the impression that scarcity, in economic terms, is never understood as absolute, but always as within the relationship between offer and demand … precisely the difference between offer and demand allows for financial gain or loss, and these are the drivers of economic behaviour … and of speculation. Environmental thought indicates that there is also an “absolute” sense to the word scarcity: there may be limits as to the availability of goods. The question I ask myself in such a case is whether the capacity to pay, i.e. wealth, should in such cases be the criterion for obtaining such goods. Certainly, I would ask the question with regard to “absolute scarce good” whether speculation can be allowed. Of course, if the answer is no to that question, we have to wonder what will be the criterion and decision making process concerning that criterion for distribution of the (absolute) scarce good. In my opinion, this requires not economic and financial calculation, but common discernment and, therefore, politics. Absolute scarcity, therefore, requires a reflection on political decision making and discernment processes.

(4) Are we sufficiently aware that today we live in a global context? Economy is about relationships between human beings, their societies or communities, and their environment. We are used to think in terms of “identities” (an individual, a family, a city, a province, a country, a nation, a continent, etc.) and then, once that identity seems to be well defined, we consider the relationships in which that identity stands and that we, from the perspective of the identity to which we belong, deem important. Maybe we should learn to think more in terms of global relationships in the game of which identities are defined and redefined. Does that not change our concept of “actor” in economic relationships? Does it also not emphasize the idea of sustainability out of the relationships that build up identities, instead of an idea of personal gain of identities that then enter into and instrumentalize relationships towards that personal gain?

I have the impression that we have to re-think profoundly — (a) the role we attribute to economics and economy as features of our life together, and — (b) our economical theories, i.e. the way in which we, economically, frame reality in an attempt to partially understand it (e.g. what elements of measurement do we use: the “national gross product” or the “human development index” or …). Theologians can ask some critical questions, but unfortunately they do not in general know enough about economics to give a good appreciation. Is teamwork possible?

National Mythologies

When I grew up, as a young Flemish boy, I was told over and over again about the battle of the golden spurs, in 1302 near Kortrijk – more precisely on July 11th, the day which is now the national day in Flanders -, where the courageous Flemish people defeated the army of the mighty King of France. I was also made to read Hendrik Conscience’s immortal novel about the Lion of Flanders, the Count of Flanders who defeated the French King. Later, as a Jesuit novice, I stayed in France for some time and, of course, I asked about this great battle (with a hidden desire to have the French admit their humiliating defeat). To my great surprise and dismay, my French co-novices knew nothing about this battle – they knew about another battle, some years after 1302 (I choose to forget the precise date here, as well as the place) where the King of France defeated the Flemish cities, affirming his rightful authority over Flanders and its Count.

I became aware that I had been taught history with a bias. Of course, precisely this bias has given me a sense of self-worth and tradition … but it is a bias and I have learned to be critical of it, especially when politicians and political parties want to use this historical bias to further their own interests and power games. I began to see that well chosen stories about our history could become a weapon against others, turning them into the victims that in our stories we imagine ourselves to have been or still to be. So, I always feel ambivalent when celebrating July 11th: proud and confident on the one side, suspicious and critical on the other side.

To be honest, I think we all have that kind of experiences. We need stories of the past that provide us with narratives to develop our self-respect and our self-confidence … but, these stories can also be used to separate us from those who are not the heroes of our stories and identities, to exclude and even to victimize them. I am interested in this narrative phenomenon that empowers us and sometimes also over-powers us, by allowing us to exclude others so as to construct our identities at the expense of our “enemies”.

I felt confimed in my feelings by Shlomo Sand’s article Deconstruction d’une histoire mythique: Comment fut inventé le peuple juif, in the August 2008 issue of Le Monde Diplomatique (p. 3) [English version of the article can be found here]. Sand is a professor of history at the University of Tel-Aviv and he critically looks at the biblical narratives and the history of the diaspora, opening up questions concerning their use with regard to the national identity of Israël. I am most certainly not enough of a scholar of Jewish and Hebrew history to gauge with any authority the work of Shlomo Sand – and, undoubtedly, his ideas give rise to controversies and passionate discussions -, but I appreciate his courage and willingness to address national narratives and myths, and to uncover their importance and possible ambiguities, precisely by eliciting – as a scientist – discussions and controversies. Of course, now also his ideas will lead their own life and be vulnerable to ideological abuse.

All of us have our myths (the word does not carry for me an immediate negative connotation, on the contrary) that help us to discover, acquire and develop the identity we need to build up self-respect and strength – this is crucial. Unfortunately, often these myths also have a violent potential, often they are open to political and public abuse. Therefore, it is absolutely crucial to investigate their truth content as well as their possible one-sidedness. I need the myth of July 11th, 1302, to become the Flemish person I am and to gain self-confidence … it refers to a real historical fact (embellished somewhat in the literature), but it also highlights one single and small historical fact, lifting it out of its larger historical, political, economic, social, etc. context … historical criticism doesn’t come cheap here, as it is a story that provides a people with a sense of security and strength, but it is all the more necessary if this people wants to avoid self-constructed and violent isolation or an unreal sense of superiority.

What I feel, when writing these lines, is the need for a sense of identity, and at the same time how vulnerable this need is and how defensive I can become when I feel threatened. All of us probably need to accept that our identities are vulnerable, so that adult and open relationships become possible.